Measurements are printed and given usually to construction workers, usually along some axis. People who lay the bricks take a top view from a house with the dimensions along the y axis. People who build the doors and windows take a side view of the dimensions along the x axis. And so on.
I may start using Blender if that's the case. I was waiting for some kind of success modeling 3D shapes using code, and automatically generating the code with LLMs, for quite some time.
We used to have deterministic systems that required humans either through code, terminals or interfaces (ex GUI's) to change what they were capable of.
If we wanted to change something about the system we would have to create that new skill ourselves.
Now we have non-deterministic systems that can be used to create deterministic systems that can use non-deterministic systems to create more deterministic systems.
In other words deterministic systems can use LLMs and LLMs can use deterministic systems all via natural language.
This slight change in how we can use compute have incredible consequences for what we will be able to accomplish both regarding cleaning up old systems and creating completely new ones.
LLMs however will always be limited by exploring existing knowledge. They will not be able to create new knowledge. And so the AI winter we are entering is different because it's only limited to what we can train the AI to do, and that is limited to what new knowledge we can create.
Anyone who work with AI everyday know that any idea of autonomous agents is so beyond the capabilities of LLMs even in principle that any worry about doom or unemployment by AI is absurd.
My way out of this was to start thinking about what can't the LLMs of the world do and my realization was actually quite simple and quite satisfying.
What LLMs can't replace is network effects. One LLM is good but 10 LLMs/agents working together creating shared history is not replaceable by any LLM no matter how smart it becomes.
So it's simple. Build something that benefit from network effects and you will quickly find new ideas, at least it worked for me.
Antelope AI | https://www.getantelope.com | Senior Python / Full stack developers | FULLTIME | ONSITE - HYBRID - REMOTE (US Only) | New York
Antelope is the worlds first synthetic prediction market run by self-learning autonomous agents and, trained by you.
We are a very early stage company looking for a developer with an interest in AI and prediction markets and preferably with experience from the betting/investment industry.
Not from a non-bayesian perspective. It's what Deutsch would call a "bad explanation" i.e. it's easy to vary and thus doesn't tell us about how the sun is powered.
It's a bad explanation because the sun (probably) IS powered by nuclear fusion.
Deutsch is confused by this situation because he doesn't have the scientific background to understand the usefulness of negations of hypotheses.
Historically, for example, a lot of people believed the sun revolved around the earth. If we treat this as T, then ~T is "the sun does not revolve around the earth".
~T certainly lacks details, but to say it's a "bad explanation" is rather silly. Obviously it's an incomplete explanation, which is why Galileo presented a full explanation ("the earth revolves around the sun") rather than just saying, "the sun does not revolve around the earth". But in fact, "the sun does not revolve around the earth" was the part that was controversial because it was the bad explanation being presented by the church (who happened to be closer to philosophers than scientists).
Basically, Deutsch is just making a straw man argument. In Deutsch's mind, the fact that "the sun does not revolve around the earth" is an incomplete theory of heliocentrism is somehow a refutation of all science, when in fact that's simply not the sort of hypothesis scientists even explore typically.
Agreed--in fact, science doesn't rely on philosophy at all. If the entire field of philosophy disappeared, science would go on functioning just fine. In fact, science has generally been hindered by philosophy--it's seemingly impossible to discuss scientific methodology without some wanker interjecting "well ackchyually nothing is knowable". Animals with nervous systems were learning from observation before humans invented enough language to epistemologize, and will continue to do so with or without philosophers.
Bayesian epistemology is an attempt to model why science works--it relies on science, not the other way around.
Bayesian epistemology is not used in almost any domain in science, it does not model why science works, and it does not rely on science: it relies on metaphysics.
The scientific method may at one time have been conceived by philosophers, but we are centuries away from that time, and in recent centuries, all the refinements and improvements to science have been done by scientists. The roots of the scientific method which one could reasonably call philosophy are so changed as to be considered invalid today.
The reverse is not true--scientists have written a lot of philosophy--and since they tend to base their philosophy in reality rather than logic based on speculation, it tends to be better philosophy than philosophers.
No the sun either is or isn't powered by nuclear fusion. There is no way of knowing whether that's the case until you can come up with a good explanation (hard to vary) everything before that is just guessing.
I can assure you Deutsch is no confused by anything in that matter and it's obvious you don't know who he is.
He is literally the guy who created quantum computation and IS a scientist.
And no that's not his argument against the the sun is revolve around the earth.
> No the sun either is or isn't powered by nuclear fusion. There is no way of knowing whether that's the case until you can come up with a good explanation (hard to vary) everything before that is just guessing.
"The sun is powered by nuclear fusion" is a clear explanation of the phenomena we observe. "The sun is not powered by nuclear fusion" would be an explanation if we observed phenomena that were inconsistent with the sun being powered by nuclear fusion.
> I can assure you Deutsch is no confused by anything in that matter and it's obvious you don't know who he is.
Well, I do now, and I assure you he is still confused.
> He is literally the guy who created quantum computation and IS a scientist.
So, he's a programmer.
What hypotheses is he known for testing? What makes him a scientist in your mind?
> And no that's not his argument against the the sun is revolve around the earth.
I'm not sure who you think said it was; I certainly didn't.
He's a theoretical physicist whose most notable is in quantum computing, philosophizing about experimental physics. Essentially his work has more to do with math/logic than science, and as far as I can tell you're simply incorrect that he's done any work in astrophysics at all.
Faktory | Full Time | Remote/On-site (New York, US) | https://www.faktory.com Faktory is building the worlds biggest, smartest and most reliable AI workforce. Your objective is to help make sure our ai agents become ever smarter, more reliable an and that new ones can be created via our Agent Studio platform.
Our aspirations are high, so your obsession with everything AI and agents will will have to bee too :)
Here are a few of the roles we want to hire for:
* Senior Developer * We are currently looking for a developer who live and breath AI/LLM/Python
* Prompt Engineer * Are you AI whisperer of prompting? Then we most definitely would want you. You need to have some basic technical understand if you are a developer it's a plus.
* Frontend Developer * You are king of vanilla javascript and kind of don't like framework but understand react.
funny i get that too on twitter what you get on bluesky. if you seek out debate you will get it, has nothing to do with twitter. Bluesky will be very boring once upu realize that the reason you hate twitter is the reason you are going to hate bluesky. Its going to be very boring very soon or very toxic. Its still going to be relying on algorithms and. business logic
When I left Twitter I didn't replace it with anything. Just normal offline friends. I joined Bluesky when someone told me that the interesting things I was looking for were there.
If you think Bluesky is a simple Twitter clone, you would be mistaken. There are fundamental differences that give choice back to the user and enable real competition in the social media landscape
I think it would be more accurate to say that, if AI wasn't constrained by the limits to production of compute, then everyone else would have an "energy costs too much" problem.
