This was much better than Gemini or CoPilot on the exact same issue and the exact same commit pointer in my repo. Both of them suggested the same wrong solution and got themselves further and further wrong as they went.

So, I guess as of today, Chat GPT 5 leads. YMMV

I haven't tried Chat GPT on it yet, hoping to do so soon.

But while we have measurements for "intelligence" we don't for "sentience", "agency", "consciousness" or these other things. And I'd argue that there are lots of intelligent life on earth (take crows as an example) that are sentient to a degree that the LLMs are not. My guess is this is because of their "agency" - their drive for survival. The LLMs we have now are clearly smarter than crows and cats but not sentient in the way those animals are. So I think it's safe to say that "sentience" (whatever that is) is not an emergent property of neural net/training data size. If it were, it'd be evident already.

So Gemini/Chat GPT seem to be "intelligence", but in tool form. Very unexpected. Something I would not have believed possible 5 or 10 years ago, but there it is.

As to whether we could create a "sentient" AI, an AGI, I don't see any reason we shouldn't be able to. But it's clear to me that something else is needed, besides intelligence. Maybe it's agency, maybe it's something else (the experience of times passage?). We probably need to ways of measuring and evaluating these other things before we can progress further.

I had a particular Cyc success story relayed to me years ago by a customer (not a Cycorp employee), the details of which I cannot divulge, but it was a pretty whopping success and the customer was quite happy with what Cyc had been able to do for them.

So while no AGI, it definitely seems like there was value to be had.

That the FBI raided the home of an individual most likely means a criminal investigation of that person, for a federal crime or a crime that crosses state boundaries.

To my mind, the main issues in software development are complexity and imperfect knowledge. We've developed a lot of practices like unit tests and code reviews which help us defend ourselves, but, ultimately, for any non-trivial software it seems like a losing battle, or if not losing, then the progress is slow and difficult and tenuous. (like trench warfare).

Some of the guslari bards could not perform the recitation without their instrument.

And, fwiw, I recall that some assert that the guslari bards were all illiterate. It has been asserted (not by me) that literacy interferes with the guslari activity of memorizing and replaying enormous epics.

Check out Ted Goia "A Subversive History of Music" for an overview - but there is a lot of other scholarship on this.

On one day one of my relatives shared a completely false meme about Obama. And a day later a different relative shared a completely false one about Palin. What kind of discourse can we have where all these lies just get propagated 24/7? I'm tired of having to look up everything on snopes.com or politifact.

The author makes an example of the many Object Oriented (OO) systems, but he performs some bait-and-switch there. Those many OO systems were for _Scheme_, not Common Lisp. And Scheme is intentionally a tiny Lisp. For a long time, Scheme was focused on being the smallest possible Lisp. Common Lisp on the other hand, while it briefly went through an OO experimentation period, really only has one OO system: CLOS.

Also, the whole Emacs line is off target too. What has that to do with the expressive power of the language? And why ignore the two extremely powerful commercial Common Lisp IDE's out there? So is the point that Common Lisp isn't successful because there isn't a better free IDE?

And the "lone wolf/80%" isn't doing it for me either. The Common Lisp specification was the work of many bright minds and is brilliant. And it stands in complete opposition to the situation the author attempts to describe.

I'm not saying that Lisp in general (Scheme, Common Lisp, and Clojure) has been successful, or that Common Lisp in particular has been. If the standard is mindshare and acceptance they have not been successful. There are histories and causes aplenty, but being too powerful is not one of them.

Anyone know of a similar system for Javascript?

But it seems to me that the had _no_ intention of ever releasing the videos, of ever charging the officer.

The intention was not to delay justice, but to suppress it entirely.

But, when one steps back and look at the statistics, an overwhelming number of practices by law enforcement are disproportionately applied to people of color. This includes "fishing trip" stops, "consent" pretext searches, as well as unequal application in the court system (bail practices, pressuring to plead guilty by "overcharging", and more).

His point is that the inherent complexity of the problem is fairly trivial, and he stated it concisely. And you are correctly pointing out that to realize the solution to the problem requires a great amount of work and expertise. Meaning, the actual programming has a great deal of additional (accidental) complexity.

And maybe the awareness around this issue will then lead to a discussion of the high human cost of the War on Drugs, the greatest burden borne by our citizens of color. And maybe that will cause us to revisit our criminal justice system and end the war on drugs.

Private prisons are a symptom, not a cause. For a better understanding of the forces leading to prison privitization and a myriad of other woes and injustices I _strongly_ recommend reading "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4084420

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953150

Points: 2

# Comments: 0