Now obviously here the point was that putting LLM in charge of more life depending decisions will result in people dying more prematurely.

But we indeed can ask, how will it compare to bare human only decisions. And even with LLMs actually and still humans in the loop. The thing is that we know the LLMs can be tweaked to maximise this or that outcome, and reinforce or inhibit this or that biases.

We don't need to blame anyone specifically, or even any specific group. Yet we, as species, do have huge tendency to scapegoat, be it some individual or some group.

Unfortunately it didn't wait that we had contemporary technologies to organize genocides at scale.

Don't fear the tool, have the courage to recognize where there are plan to commit odious actions and where they are employed for the greatest good of humanity as a whole. Yes there can be grey areas, lot of them, but also people that obviously lost there path far away from pondering empathy with the due high weight in important decision in which they are significantly influencing outcomes.

This is conflating care that every human can thrive their best with desire to see everyone bound to some dominance strategy of hieratic pissing territory.

On absolute level, no human can answer since humans don't have absolute general knowledge and thus lack ability for valid general absolute judgements. Note that personally I do believe that humans can access some chunks of absolute truth, including that some absolute truth is likely existing but we lack the capability to grab it at general level.

There is no absolute reason to believe humans are absolutely special.

Now on very relative and immanent grounds, humans are very special to me and the interest in which will dwell in. Note that this is nothing special to human species. Special interest for same kin is certainly a common trait to any living being to which we human would agree to attribute ability to have any interest in anything.

Who care of we absolutely are special? Only those who believe they need to belong to special ontological class to worth anything to their fellow relatives and feel like they need to justify some kind of privilege will fall in obsession with that topic of being special.

No one need to be absolutely special to get interest of others. Relax, go say to the people which are so special to you how much you care about them.

And just because utterances can be more or less matched with recursive tree doesn’t mean there is an ontological absolute truth about language there. Even "language" refers to some vague abstraction. Just like the "it" in "it rains" mentioned in this discussion: no entity out there actually respond to "language".

At introspection level, I absolutely don’t interpret utterances like recursive tree. They are more like cues going through living graphs more or less already connected and being able to change topology on the go. Impermanence of interpretation results is the only constant.

Now it’s not to dismiss that some other people might feel like "Natural language IS structured as a recursive tree" is the only way. People have different perspective, different brains, different life experiences. One who dwell in aphantasia¹ don’t perceive the world the same way as people that have hyperphantasia². Different of course here doesn’t mean better/worst or superior/inferior.

¹ A word I discovered in some HN comment

² A word that I had never red before but just popped up in my mind as I was thinking about this sentence, but which is actually already is in use in literature apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperphantasia

I would rather say it’s derived from contextual element. And in linguistic context which encodes more interpretation cues, order of morphemes drop symmetrically in semantical importance, though it can still affect interpretation on pragmatic level. Latin for example already offers more flexibility regarding word order, though it’s used mostly in poetry/stylised-rhetoric. And as German show having the case encoded in the nouns don’t even prevent mandatory rigidity in sentence structure.

I guess the author means in contrast to some cases like "Pluvas" in Esperanto, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOBkKcbJUAE for a nice employ of it.

Italian, Spanish and Latin (for example) can generally avoid to express explicitly the subject in a dedicated pronoun, as the verb already encode the it through specific flection. In contrast in French and German only in imperative tense one can formally make such an ellipsis (colloquially of course one can encounter more nuances).

So nothing exceptionnal

Mercosur ain't gonna save the population from starvation if shipping cost start to reflect actual environmental, energetic and geopolitical impact, as the trend seems to go.

There was no mention here on rushing to anything. Verbosity is not always bringing actual non-duplicating information. And even when the explicit way is taken, it can be put aside from human main analysis observation point. Actually even Typscript allow to organize type information by using .d.ts files for declaration files that contain only type information, while implementation files use the .ts extension.

Then there is the tradeoff between grepable explicit type and spare implementation with as much type inference as possible.

One approach that Ruby took for type introduction was to put that in a different file. That comes to my mind.

Typescript brings some niceties, but also some boilerplate all other the place. Combined with something like Effect, Zod, and the like and line count explode. Not sure OCAML or Haskell would provide more compactness for equivalent safety.

  Result(double) x = strtod·or·error(s);
  
  if (!x.ok) {
      handle(x.error);
      return;
  }
  
  use(x.value);

  typedef struct {
      double value;
      int    error;   /* 0 = ok */
  } maybe·double;
  
  maybe·double x = strtod·or·error(s, NULL);
  if (x.error) { /* handle */ }

The spectre of possible interpretations is wide.

Some see only problems everywhere whatever the benefits might be, some see only new opportunities no matter the tragic outcomes, some see various blend of this and that.