This make me thing about dynamic programming languages. I listened to this podcast with Steven Baker (https://open.spotify.com/episode/5X55PoHg5lhLUH7Z0IzUe7). Around 1:09 he talks about the runtime overservability of Ruby and Smalltalk.

Static language proponents live in a deterministic Matrix. They have to live with what they are. The are „human“. Dynamic language proponents live in a way more inspectable Matrix. They live with how something something behaves. They behave human.

A follow-up thought: would the agents be possible in one or the other? Would Neo be possible in one or the other?

nostr:note102c8jqzgwhcqj3a4tgu676m6n5cyph0eek583z9uhh36khj6gwxq823kep

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

#golang has a reflection system that lets you inspect everything inside the program and interfaces let you connect two things together that speak the same language (interfaces are APIs)

i don't live in a deterministic matrix

not only does my weapon of choice have reflection and interfaces (enabling swapping out parts for others, modularity), it also has concurrency which means it's more than your definition of "human" - it can simulate a whole ecosystem or factory production line with far less complex code than any of these garbage interpreted languages.

At 50% the bot is about at “human” level, because the test subjects effectively cannot tell the difference in the Turing test. It’s a flip of a coin, despite the dynamic inspections. At 70%, does that mean they are “more human than humans”?

That‘s a very good question.

And it makes my point. We don‘t know beforehands what behaving human means. We‘re figuring this out.

they resemble psychopaths to my eyes.

😄that reminds me of

Wonder who wrote all the AI-digested texts in the internet. SEO-marketeer-psychopaths?

Agreed. If it sounds too good.

What if I tell you I am a 🤖

i can spot AI text EVERY time. so this is false marketing fake study.

If true, there will always be a job for you. You should volunteer to be on the next studies.

How sure are you about this „concurrency“?

i've been writing concurrent code for 8 years. i have also been writing code with reflection (aka introspection) for a lot of that time, i think sometimes you can call it "metaprogramming" - where you write code that writes code. I also have written lexical analysis programs as well.

i don't think you understand much about programming if you think reflection makes it "human" nor do i think you really understand that making golems (human-like machines) is a worthless activity, because we barely even understand ourselves let alone if we build something that simulates human, what depths of darkness will come of it because error is the rule in software, far worse consequences come from machine error than human because the machine inherently is going to be a lot harder to teach empathy.

i also have read a LOT of stories about artificial intelligence, and the theme of the lack of wisdom of machines is pretty much central to all of them.

the cybernetic apotheosis theme is another one and it always ends in a bad place, ultimately.

the whole subject is extremely nihilistic and inhuman. i'm done talking about it because you are just charmed by marketing from people who WANT to eliminate you from the world so they can just pretend they are gods and never have anyone disagree with them, because they programmed them.

like noah harare's speech about "hackable animals". you are buying into this narrative. it's not based on truth, and it's a game to get you to give up your sovereignty, it's got nothing to do with progress.

Can I use Go in a way so that I don‘t feel a build step?