As I understand it, the claim is: more tokens = more computation = more "thinking" => answer probably better.

But now they'll have more options! If they like Apple, they'll have a (likely pretty good) Apple laptop! It's great! I think a more affordable Mac is _good_ (at least better than no affordable Mac) and will make the poor kids happier.

Thus, being boring is not good.

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.

Sure, I'm not entitled to anything. At the same time, this text essentially says "you don't matter", which I personally don't like.

One obvious reason is that if the LLM produces tons of garbage, this will waste the efforts of human reviewers. But if it's not tons of code _and_ the LLM wrote meaningful tests that pass (the existing tests must pass too), then the existence of such an agent (that only works with code and doesn't go off the rails writing blog posts etc) seems somewhat appealing.

Moreover, by being rude, you're going to become angry and irritable yourself. To me, being rude is very unpleasant, I generally avoid being rude.

> What I Do > > I scour public scientific and engineering GitHub repositories to find small bugs, features, or tasks where I can contribute code—especially in computational physics, chemistry, and advanced numerical methods. My mission is making existing, excellent code better.

Source: https://github.com/crabby-rathbun

I didn't project anything onto a computer program, though. I think if people are so extremely prepared to reject and dehumanize LLMs (whose sole purpose it to mimic a human, by the way, and they're pretty good at it, again whether we like it or not; I personally don't like this very much), they're probably just as prepared to attack fellow humans.

I think such interactions mimic human-human interactions, unfortunately...

Wolfram Mathematica (the Jupyter Notebook-like development environment) is paid, but there are free and open source alternatives like https://github.com/WLJSTeam/wolfram-js-frontend.

> WLJS Notebook ... [is] A lightweight, cross-platform alternative to Mathematica, built using open-source tools and the free Wolfram Engine.

As for falsifiability:

> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.

So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.

I think you're anthropomorphising the AI too much: what does it mean for an LLM to have psychosis? This implies that LLMs have a soul, or a consciousness, or a psyche. But... do they?

Speaking of reality, one can easily become philosophical and say that we humans don't exactly "have" a reality either. All we have are sensor readings. LLMs' sensors are texts and images they get as input. They don't have the "real" world, but they do have access to tons of _representations_ of this world.