Bistable multivibrator
Non-state actor
Tabs for AI indentation, spaces for AI alignment
410,757,864,530 DEAD COMPUTERS

  • 25 Posts
  • 725 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle










  • It’s just depressing. I don’t even think Yudkoswsky is being cynical here, but expressing genuine and partially justified anger, while also being very wrong and filtering the event through his personal brainrot. This would be a reasonable statement to make if I believed in just one or two of the implausible things he believes in.

    He’s absolutely wrong in thinking the LLM “knew enough about humans” to know anything at all. His “alignment” angle is also a really bad way of talking about the harm that language model chatbot tech is capable of doing, though he’s correct in saying the ethics of language models aren’t a self-solving issue, even though he expresses it in critihype-laden terms.

    Not that I like “handing it” to Eliezer Yudkowsky, but he’s correct to be upset about a guy dying because of an unhealthy LLM obsession. Rhetorically, this isn’t that far from this forum’s reaction to children committing suicide because of Character.AI, just that most people on awful.systems have a more realistic conception of the capabilities and limitations of AI technology.




  • Absolutely. Take the reverence for “SysV” init* to the point where the init system has all but eclipsed the AT&T Unix release as the primary meaning of “System V”. The BSDs (at least the Net/Open branch, not sure about FreeBSD) adopted a simplified BSD init/rc model ages ago and Solaris switched to systemd-esque SMF with little uproar. Personally I even prefer SMF over its Linux equivalents, despite the cumbersome XML configuration.

    I somewhat understand the terminalchud mindset, a longing for a supposed simpler time where a nerd could keep a holistic grasp of one’s computing system in their head. Combine that with the tech industry’s pervasive male chauvinism and dogmatic adherence to a law of “simplify and reduce weight” (usually a useful rule of thumb) and you end up with terrible social circles making bad software believing they’re great on both fronts.

    * Rather, the Linux implementation of the concept


  • make it a Python script that does all the hard bits with a system call to bash

    Oh god, please no. I have PTSD from 50-line Python scripts by anti-bash fundamentalists full of os.system, subprocess.run and/or subprocess.call that could have just been 15-line bourne shell scripts.

    If you’re gluing programs together, shell scripts are often the best way to do it. If you’re not gluing programs together, do you even Unix? If you want to be fundie about it, obey shellcheck.

    It sucks that bash is such a footgun. Perl was supposed to fix a lot of that, but now everyone hates it, because it also lets people to do clever and subtly incorrect things, which have then become quasi-idiomatic. Mom, can we have a sensible human-computer interface?