I have noticed, in general, LLMs tend to "fix" problems by shoving them under the rug (like adding a cast) or writing a super-local "fix" instead of taking the time to understand the deeper problem or structure.

In Rust, when you get stuck in a complicated borrow-checking problem, Rust people will tell you it's a Good Thing(tm) because it forces you to think about the higher level architecture of your code. An LLM, on the other hand, might bash its head a couple of times trying to "fix" the problem, and then just throw in a Refcell (or other workaround), see that it compiles, and call it a day.

Refcells "move borrow checking to runtime", meaning that the code will compile, and will crash at runtime if the object is tried to be accessed from two different places at the same time. In most "normal" programming languages it's not an issue -- but it's a crash in Rust.

Now, maybe the models have gotten better, and maybe you can get around this problem by using a good system prompt/"tools" and a good testing methodology. What I am saying however is that you shouldn't automatically take "rewritten to Rust by AI" at face value of it being good Rust code, or a testimonial of "Rust and AI being a good match". (Go is better I think)

>whether these systems do or could in the future exhibit something similar?

I think the whole discussion is based on the idea that consciousness isn't something you can "exhibit". (Tell me, how can you "exhibit consciousness"?)

I guess you actually review and actively participate in making the plan, you just don't review the code afterwards?

Could you share some more details on the specifics of your workflow? (What models/harnesses? do you use the same or different context windows? How exactly do you run the review, and how do you pass along and act upon the information from the review?) Also, how big are the changes you usually implement with one plan/develop/review cycle?

Kinda, yeah. If I automatically apply lint suggestions, I would title my commit "apply lint suggestions".

While the thing that gives you quick dopamine might win in the very short term, you can still step back and recognize when it's not satisfying in the long term and you're not even enjoying it that much.

And people aren't stupid. Junk food exists, yet lots of people choose to eat more wholesome food as the majority of their diet.

The problem with instagram or youtube is that you can't separate the good from the bad.

It's like if every time you went to store Y to buy milk, you would be exposed to highly manipulative marketing trying to get you to buy junk food. You would probably want to go to a different store instead.

What I'm suggesting is the possibilities of different stores, with different philosophies and standards, so that people can choose where they go. Corner stores (where almost everything is junk food) exist, yet people still choose to go to real supermarkets.

Absolutely not. It's much easier to make a one-time switch than to be continuously resisting temptation. Changing the things in your environment is an important tool to break bad habits. The book "Atomic Habits" talks about this at length.

Although to some extent they're correlated, sometimes the things that are most enjoyable you wouldn't describe as "addicting" and vice-versa.

Eating a nice full meal is more enjoyable than eating doritos on your couch, but you wouldn't describe it as addicting.

If anything, I find my experience of youtube today to be less enjoyable than in the past

It could be perhaps as simple as allowing third-party websites and apps for watching Youtube on your phone. And it's okay if this would be a premium paid feature, so there's no counter argument that "it costs them money to host videos".

This is not an entirely new idea either. Before Spotify became popular, people would integrate Last.FM into their media players to get music recommendation based on their listening history, and you could listen to music via YouTube directly on the last.fm website.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47213580

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Regarding the number of solvable boards. It is actually possible to calculate the exact number. The solvable boards correspond to the image of the matrix of moves. It will be a vector (sub)space over Z/2Z, so it will always be a power of 2, and its size will be determined by the rank of the matrix. For example for 5x5, there are 2^22 valid boards.

And regarding the number of solutions to a given board, (assuming you ignore the order of moves, because it doesn't matter) it will always be the exact same number, and in the case of 5x5 it will be 2^8. 8 is the nullity of the matrix of moves.

Note that 22+8=30, which is 44+33+22+11, which is the number of possible moves.

I was thinking of making weekly levels be very big (like 12x12) where I don't know what the par is myself, and have it be a challenge to see who in the community can figure out a way to get the lowest number of moves.

And daily levels would probably be more similar to the regular levels.