First, I want to state up top that I don't personally agree with any legislation that seeks to ban or limit access to frontier llms.

Having said that, it's difficult to not have a somewhat glib reaction to this news. Surely, if leadership believes what is written above then they are happy with this outcome. Ignoring all perverse incentives or potential market manipulation that might be going on from this current administration, on it's face it's a genies wish granted, "your models are so dangerous that the world should pause development? done. You may start pausing development."

1- https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme...

Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball.

My implied argument is not so much that "because llm was used, then llm must be used."

The original argument proposed by the author is essentially distilled into, "because llm could be used, we must no longer accept public contributions."

Which is, in my opinion, a disproportional and misguided overreaction. The llm was apparently good enough to do the byte for byte replica, so we know that it can be used (within the context of ladybird) in a way that's apparently acceptable to the maintainers.

To attempt to get more precise, argument is that "closing the gates" is moving in the wrong direction against progress, and a signals a potentially net negative impact to the ladybird project.

I don't have a fully formed thesis, it's a lot of vibes. It just feels wrong. I'm willing to acknowledge that, much like the overreaction that I'm calling out, I could be experiencing a similar kind of conservative gut reaction to the changing of the open source community that unsettles me.

Well see how it all shakes out. Right now the topic is so charged and we don't have a good suite of tools and heuristics for the new world, that were bound to see the gamut of reactions.

I gave you the chance to rebuke essentially, "would you trust some random insinuations by a potentially unqualified person on the internet ginning up support for some thing that they do not understand?"

You will note that I have never once said that you are not a software engineer. Instead I've given you the opportunity for you to defend yourself _as_ a software engineer. And mostly commented this far that you have displayed a general lack of understanding. The arguments that you have presented lack quality and merit. The onus is on you to present the reason we should listen to whatever it is you're saying about Bun.

If you are a software engineer, you are not doing a good job of representing yourself as one. Which is what I'm asking you to do, albeit in an aggressive manner: defend your position if you feel so strongly.

It's good for upvotes on hackernews though. You don't need substance. Just ride the wave of vitriol.

They're not exactly casually absorbed, as in a wiki or forum. But you can read some books that begin to introduce these ideas. On the topic of consciousness, less academic and more slated towards general audience: Reality+ by David Chalmers and Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel and Galileo's Error by Phillip Goff will give you and interesting gamut of ideas.

The thing about arguments in philosophy is that they span from a very old web of thought that has been refined into very sharp positions over a long time. So you will find yourself ever recursively going back to understand ideas and framing with more precision.

This is why it's difficult to casually get into these topics IMO. There's just been so much said and discussed, to understand the current meta (as the gaming folks might say), you have to understand how we arrived at the current meta. And that's a long journey that's never complete!

I personally do wonder (worry) about where all of this pans out and what society looks like post generative llms. But at the same time there is a particular flavor of amusement that I can't help feeling watching folks simultaneously balance, "llms produce nothing of value" and "llms are so harmful and dangerous to our culture that we need to start policing use within our community"

Where that harm essentially stems from devaluing hard earned skills within the community. And while I do not take joy in the displacement of labor, never in my wildest dreams could I have anticipated how harsh and irrational of a reaction to the equity of these skills could be. Which, I would like to point out, though hard earned were earned under the tremendous privilege to pursue these goals in the first place.

Llms are an amplifier of an individuals intuition and taste. That these supposed pillars of the community are not bravely exploring how to push and wrangle these bounds, and instead are retracting into conservative stances under the guise of human centric morality is (IMHO) demonstrative of lack of confidence and creativity within these fields more generally.

I believe that this lack of creativity and imagination is how we find ourselves in the personal fable you're noting: the experts are so myopic that they can't even imagine how they're field can be disrupted until it's disrupted outside of their control, and feel the need to control rather than explore.

Are you an engineer? Make clear claims, and then back then up crisp and concrete arguments. Support your arguments with data. That's engineering.

What you're doing is wallowing in the outrage machine. Please start with your indepth understanding of the bun runtime that qualifies you to comment on the overall quality claims that you have not yet made but have insinuated.

Please clearly cite your concerns. Please present a cogent and articulate analysis of the overall shortcomings, gaps and potential threats of the bun rewrite.

Let's have an engineering discussion.

If y'all ever wondered how your dads got sucked into alt right talkshows and radio, just read ops comment in Tucker Carlson's voice.

There is no moral or ethical obligation to disclose tool use. The disclosure in of itself presents an asymmetric disadvantage to the disclosee. Especially in this charged environment where large swathes of people are champing at the bit to discredit or diminish any effort that leverages these tools.

This system incentivizes people to hide tool use to gain a competitive advantage.

This moralistic grandstanding will be seen as a reactionary movement of people trying to cope with transformative technology.

Lie about tool use, don't admit it. Use it as you see fit and rely on your taste, expertise and best judgement.

As a conflict averse society, we excuse people that indulge in these kinds of behaviors once they reach a critical mass. It's kind of like a conversion disorder.

Covid is a good analogy here. We went seemingly overnight to righteous indignation to cold and flu commercials advertising their products so you can go to work sick.

It's cool right now to dislike ai, and there are plenty of charlatans that are ready to harness that for whatever new outrage.

We live in such an information dense world that people will form very strong beliefs about things overnight, castigate those that don't agree with them, and then shed them just as fast when no longer conveniently held.

I have worked in fortune 500 companies for 15 years, and my observation is that there is an alarming amount of people (engineering) who work in these companies are completely inept in their domain of expertise.

What they seem to get by on is a complete adherence to hierarchy: do not ask questions, do not push back on requests, do not engage in capability mindset, just execute on whatever slop is getting jammed down the throat of middle management.

Now, as someone who is on "the leadership team", I see this as generally widespread across many different orgs.

These folks obviously serve some function: which is to churn out whatever the whims are of the executive leadership team based on the Current Business Strategy.

So what do we do with these folks? Let them keep doing it. We could satisfy these roles with the standard factory style highschool education followed by an associates -like degree, e.g. a two year rule following program that introduces the domain and jargon that you're going to be in.

Patrick Star, in response to SpongeBob asking him to refrain from eating a candy bar, following a closeup pan of Patrick's extremely overweight body, "what do you want me to do, starve???"

Something children can understand the humor in. Being used to excuse marching us into totalitarian dystopia.

Is about as fucking around for clicks as it gets