Well what would each billionaire do? Give out money so that the poor can give some of it back?
You cannot just point at a system, say it’d be unsustainable and then assume nobody will let that happen.
Monarchies, lords, etc. have had much more reason to support their own countryfolk, yet many throughout history have not - has society changed enough that the billionaires have changed on this?
Even two wrong, but countering, inputs can sometimes provide right answer, so the rational above has some merit.
But if I interpret the question with line of thinking "should I anticipate right/ full answers despite incorrect/ incomplete inputs?" I think Baggage was pointing out the problem in the logic why such questions should arise.
I would expect the question to be phrased "under what circumstances the machine with provide wrong outputs?", and would have hoped for Babbage (or may be anyone) explaining many ways how things could go wrong.
This is a pretty wild comparison in my opinion, it counts almost everything as gambling which means it has almost no use as a definition.
The most obvious issue is it’d class working with humans as gambling. Fine if you want to make that as your definition but it seems unhelpful to the discussion.
You seem to have a fundamental issue understanding what the term deterministic even means.
If you give the same trivial task to the same human five times in a row, let's say wash the dishes, your dishes are either gonna be equally clean or equally not clean enough every time. Hell, it might even get better over time by giving them feedback at the end of the task that it can learn from.
If you run the same script five times in a row while changing some input variables, you're gonna get the same, predictable output that you can understand, look at the code, and fix.
If you ask the same question to the same LLM model five times in a row, are you getting the same result every time? Is it kind of random? Can the quality be vastly different if you reject all of its changes, start a new conversation, and tell it to do the same thing again using the exact same prompt? Congrats, that's gambling. It's no different than spinning a slot machine in a sense that you pass it an input and hope for the best as the output. It is different than a slot machine in a sense that you can influence those odds by asking "better", but that does not make it not gambling.
Deterministic doesn’t mean “generally pretty predictable, in broad strokes”.
> If you give the same trivial task to the same human five times in a row, let's say wash the dishes, your dishes are either gonna be equally clean or equally not clean enough every time.
Probably pretty similar but not quite the same. Sometimes they might drop a plate.
> If you ask the same question to the same LLM model five times in a row, are you getting the same result every time?
Probably pretty similar results. Sometimes they might mess up.
> It is different than a slot machine in a sense that you can influence those odds by asking "better", but that does not make it not gambling.
It rather can, we don’t call literally anything with a random element to the outcome gambling.
I’m probably gambling with my life if I pick a random stranger to operate on me. Am I gambling with my life if I take a considered look at the risk and reward and select a highly qualified surgeon?
Is it gambling to run a compiler given that bitflips can happen?
How does it 'count almost everything as gambling'? They just said 'non-deterministic' output is gambling-like, that is not 'almost everything'. Most computation that you use on a day-to-day basis (depending on how much you use AI now I suppose) is in all ways deterministic. Using probabilistic algorithms is not new, but it your point is not clicking...
That starts to get into a very philosophical space talking about human action as deterministic or not. I think keeping to the fact that the artifacts (ie code) we are working off will have deterministic effects (unless we want it not to) is exactly the point. That is what lets chaotic human brains communicate with machines at all. Adding more chaos to the system doesn't strike me as obviously an improvement.
Almost everything is non deterministic to some degree. Huge amounts of machine learning, most things that have some timing element to them in distributed systems, anything that might fail, anything involving humans, actual running computation given that bitflips can happen. At what point does labelling everything that has some random element “gambling” become pointless? At best it’ll be entirely different to how others use the term.
Also, you can share the generic program and then share wrapper scripts that are named for what they do rather than a series of flags. Then to share, you're just sharing a config file, script or similar that calls "whatever.exe --dir=./blah --run=12 --batch=false"
There's a whole host of problems with it. I'm almost on the side of saying this is a well written troll post but...
To have two different things you need to run, now you need to have multiple copies of the same thing.
What does the parsing? How do you split out a URL, what order are the "flags" in? Do you have named arguments, etc? Well now you need to have your own custom parsing library instead of just using exactly what anyone else would use.
Where do you go for help? Do you rename it to my_program_help.exe then rerun it?
What about chaining things together? Anything dynamic? Is the caller script expected to rename your program before running it?
> Imagine install_PY3_MODULE_NAME.exe. It reads the filename, extracts the Python module name, downloads dependencies, sets up Python if needed, and creates a launcher. Rename it, and you have a new installer for a different project. Icons, mirrors, or other metadata can also live in the file as resources – all self-contained, all shareable.
Imagine changing that to "install_python.exe --module module_name".
The thing you really want to do instead is have a single executable, then have scripts or even aliases that are named for what they do that are super thing wrappers. One copy, no moving, renaming, anything.
Knowing what's happening in the team and personally reviewing parts of the code for best practices are very different things. Are the other team members happy? Does development seem to go smoothly, quickly and without constantly breaking? Does the team struggle to upgrade or refactor things? At some level you have to start trusting that the people working know what they're doing, and help guide from a higher level so they understand how to make the right tradeoffs for the business.
> I’m planning to write something about this too, but this one is more of an art piece: It’s a ticking wall clock that ticks seconds irregularly, but is always accurate to the minute (with its time getting synced over the internet). It has various modes, one mode has variable tick timing, from 500 ms to 1500 ms, which is delightfully infuriating. Another mode ticks imperceptibly more quickly than a second, but then pauses for a second randomly, making the unsuspecting observer question their sanity. Another one races to :59 at double speed and then waits there for thirty seconds, and the last one is simply a normal clock, because all the irregular ticking drives me crazy.
I like this, I've always had a soft spot for interesting clocks, and the first description has a strong nostalgia for me from the Discworld:
> Someone very clever—certainly someone much cleverer than whoever had trained that imp—must have made the clock for the Patrician’s waiting room. It went tick-tock like any other clock. But somehow, and against all usual horological practice, the tick and the tock were irregular. Tick tock tick…and then the merest fraction of a second longer before…tock tick tock…and then a tick a fraction of a second earlier than the mind’s ear was now prepared for. The effect was enough, after ten minutes, to reduce the thinking processes of even the best-prepared to a sort of porridge. The Patrician must have paid the clockmaker quite highly.
I've definitely had pushback on what to do or approaches, yes. I've had this more recently because I've been pushing more on a side of "I want to know if this would end up being fast enough / allow something that it'd be worth doing". I've had to argue harder for something recently, and I'm genuinely not sure if it is possible or not. While it's not flat out refused to do it, it's explained to me why it won't work, and taken some pushing to implement parts of it. My gut feeling is that the blockers it is describing are real but we can sidestep them by taking a wilder swing at the change, but I'm not sure I'm right.
You cannot just point at a system, say it’d be unsustainable and then assume nobody will let that happen.
Monarchies, lords, etc. have had much more reason to support their own countryfolk, yet many throughout history have not - has society changed enough that the billionaires have changed on this?
reply