You can tell it's slop because of the way that it is.
The heading "The type system is gradual, and that is the whole design" is a dead giveaway.
Actually the whole "How young this is" section reads very LLM-y. Claude, I think? It's funny that LLMs have more distinctive authorial voices than so many people.
Yes, Claude, good ear :) The compiler was built with agents; the repo has an AGENTS.md describing how they're used. Without them this would have taken me months instead of days. But the design is mine, and so are the mistakes. The decisions that shape the whole thing, byte-for-byte compatibility with existing .tex, gradual typing with an explicit unknown (`?O`) instead of trying to type all of LaTeX, and review comments living inside the file, come from years of writing papers in Overleaf and wanting more from the compiler than "Missing } inserted". Vitela (https://vitela.artificialfallibility.com/) exists because once the compiler knows more, the editor can show it. Fair hit on the prose, though. I'll rewrite that section myself.
Have you seen Finding Forrester? It's a lot easier to write once you've got a frame and a few sentences you don't like on the page!
It's great to use these tools to give you more time to be a human, but the ReadMe is for humans, and is dramatically improved by being set in your voice. The problem is that when your project description looks like the result of a solid twenty minute prompt session it woefully undersells the rest of the project.
It might be cool! I might bother to learn it! But I'm not going to care more than you about it.
Not to brag, but I caught it on the first sentence.
> ExactTeX is LaTeX with gradual annotation: you name the object you want checked, and what you do not name stays ordinary LaTeX, transported byte for byte.
This "byte for byte" phrase was the giveaway. You'll find it everywhere. I really detest these slop projects.
Tangential, but it's interesting to me that there are "Valve watchers", people who are big on social media for doing Valve analysis and kremlinology. Humans are so cool.
kremlinology is the term for any political intelligence gathering that's all second-order. In the canonical case of the Kremlin it's because it was very difficult to get inside data and even then there were so many moving parts that you needed an expert in just that area who had alot of data like who was having drinks with whom to predict who might be on the out and who might be ascendant.
There was one analyst reading Pravda who noticed a lot of people were suddenly being promoted into positions held by members of a certain large clique, with no notice about what was happening to the former appointees.
After one of the nuclear treaties was signed, there was a guy whose photo was published in Pravda, shaking hands with Gorbachev; a different fresh photo of him shaking hands with Gorbachev every day for an entire month. He turned out to be the head of the ministry of strategic deception.
kremlinology is an old pre-1989 term for people trying to observe and interpret the workings of a tightly sealed institution. Could be used for Vatican rumors and news, too, for example, or North Korea, etc.
Similar to that idea of trying to derive stuff from an indirect channel, but much more distant. (There is an obvious link between food consumption and building occupancy.)
Stuff like watching the order of names on public lists of attendees for dinner events, etc. If someone disappeared or moved off the top few names, perhaps they're in trouble or have been purged from the party ... or maybe they're just sick this week.
What do you mean? Are you arguing that it's impossible to fully translate things? Would you argue that "apple", "manzana", "pomme", "mela", "maçã" etc. all refer to different ideas?
Granny Smith, Honeycrisp, Red Delicious? All apples, wildly different, all common. Even within the more commercially available variants there are significant differences: https://www.jessicagavin.com/types-of-apples/
> "Apple" is a generic name, that does not actually really express anything particularly specific.
...
> "apple" as an idea doesn't really express anything concrete without lots more context.
I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the nuance, but can't help to feel that you've moved the goalposts from the earlier:
> There are no "ideas" independent of expression.
I never meant to claim that ideas have to be concrete or specific, if anything, the best thing about an idea is that it is not any of those.
And it's clear to me that you did perfectly understand what I meant by:
> "apple", "manzana", "pomme", "mela", "maçã"
as you then said "isn't even a fruit", so I was able to effectively communicate to you the abstract idea of a particular type of fruit. Communication of ideas does work to promote coordination of actions (in this case a comment thread on "the same topic"), and while flawed and fuzzy, I don't see how it could function if there were no ideas independent of expression.
Yeah most of the advance assumes you have the data ready at hand and just need to phrase the cards right, get the number of words right. Whereas for conceptual domains the biggest problem is: how do I encode this as question-answer pairs at all? What I want to read more of is people sitting down and writing in the first-person perspective how they go about it, like Michael Nielsen does here: https://cognitivemedium.com/srs-mathematics
hey fernando, I read your article a lot and it's helped me a lot in my own spaced repetition so thanks from me!
a note on your request, have you seen this video before? Andy has some custom PDF reader he built with flashcards built-in, and it's two hours of tacit flashcard creation centered around quantum mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFuu4pesKf0
Sometimes you can be in a situation where every actor taking locally-rational actions leads to globally catastrophic outcomes. It would be easy to argue I think that the July Crisis was like this: if you look at the incentives of each player, they had many reasons to do what they did, and nobody can perfectly what all other players will do, or what the future holds.
Doesn't this prove my point? In feudal Japanese society, wealthy merchants were lower status than poor samurai, i.e., they rich could not buy political power. "The wealthy" and "the ruling class" are not always the same group of people.
I guess I was thinking of the samurai as being part of the permanant overclass. You mentioned that of old aristocracy provided officers for the military, so I thought that was analogious to the samurai. Perhaps I misread what you're trying to say.
My reading was that the Samurai were part of the overclass but were pretty useless, albiet still potentially dangerous, and just sat around devouring resources for hundreds of years, so perhaps the overclass of the future could do the same. The samuri weren't all rich, but they didn't dishonor themselves with labor, which is a similar thing and they certainly held power over the state. The end of the samuri was, perhaps, an example of the state getting what it wants despite the desires of the permanant overclass, supporting what you said, but it took a long time to get there.
I suppose you are thinking of the Samuri as an arm of the state and not "the rich".
You're making a mistake by confusing "wealth" and "ownership of the means of production". Under feudalism, the means of production are land rights. Merchants don't have those; warrior-nobles do. The ruling class is the class that controls the means of production.
I will say that a feudal society where you have merchants/factors/etc becoming richer than the feudal nobles is a society in transition. The Japanese example is no different from Renaissance and early modern Europe when capitalism was in its earliest stages.
For every person using AI as a personal tutor there's a hundred people using it to produce AI slop articles, slop scientific papers, slop short stories, to checck out of living and let the AI do all their thinking and writing and creation. Voluntary disempowerment is already here!
For many, this is how they learn. They are experience learners, which is the vast majority. This overwhelming condemning of people learning, not being excellent first try, always comparing against the famous top tiers of everything is Lord Of The Flies. Fuck it: make slop, swim in slop, and emerge smarter. Condemn those experiencing and trying and learning is the stupid slop.
A corporation that is fully staffed by AIs and only retains humans for legal reasons (as directors, for liability etc.) still needs money to coordinate. You need to pay for inputs, you need to pay to run the AIs, which consumes resources. Why would costs go to zero? The market is still a valuable tool for allocating resources even if no market actors are human.
To my mind the article is excellently written, but it comes with many bigger "if"s than the one it states.
That said, taking for granted some of its premisses, indeed saying that cost goes to zero in term of money is no big deal.
That is, money is purely human conventions. So if humans are put out of the loop, not only monetary cost goes to zero, the whole notion can skipped.
Of course, there is still some energy and material needed to run data centers, which do have costs in whatever unit one might measure them with.
A market is a place where human encounter to trade. Without humans, there is no market.
We do with mere local scalar currency because using vectorial computation taking into account everything that can be probed and measured into account integrated into a single whole is out of reach for human representation, even for the most intellectually gifted human person.
Money is a stupid unit, that tries to conflate everything in a single scalar and proves every single time that it's not able to deem what something is worth in all its intricated relationships. But somehow humans seem unable to leverage at scale on any tool that would be more sophisticated in all their socioeconomical exchanges. Once again, if one eliminate humans from the equation, or isolate as a ridiculously marginal factor, money and market become irrelevant.
All that said, once again, that stand on a very large set of "if"s.
> All that said, once again, that stand on a very large set of "if"s.
Yeah, probably I should have listed some more premises, i.e. that corporations maximize profits, the state maximizes power and security (I don't entirely buy the Realist framework, but if you want to predict how things work out "in the limit", rather than tomorrow, it seems alright?).
And naturally every "therefore" becomes weaker the further out into the future you try to predict.
> A corporation that is fully staffed by AIs and only retains humans for legal reasons (as directors, for liability etc.) still needs money to coordinate.
i see developer starting to develop apps from scratch using ai. they aren't really doing "ai-assisted coding", the LLMs are doing pretty much most of the work.
and the company is shedding people off (as in: voluntarily not not keeping up with the natural people turnover).
as a sysadmin/cloud/devops engineer this is weird because i see people that after a week of development have a decently complex app working... but they have no idea how it works. they're largely unable to troubleshoot it.
Why am I writing this?
Because i have a very strong feeling that people in other positions (directors, managers etc) are doing a very similar job, meaning they essentially have no idea what's going on at all.
How long can this go on? I don't know really, i think this is uncharted territory for humanity.
Well, I can't solve everyone's lives.
reply