I suspect the whole field of mathematics will simply disappear as a career path. It seems obvious that the trajectory is for the machines to be able to provide proof on demand for any solvable problem. Whether or not the proof is understandable by humans is perhaps irrelevant in the larger sense. Doing hard math will simply become another black box tool in the larger AI toolkit for goal optimisation. Is this sad and should we try to prevent it? Is it any less sad than the venerable London cabbie who spent a life time memorising every street to gain "the knowledge" and almost overnight supplanted by machine intelligence.
Claude’s scripts can’t call MCP tools, meaning everything has to be CLIs or libraries. At which point you lose the “everything has self-documenting input-output schema” that Codemode is going for.
Because the scripts run outside the harness, they would have to create their own MCP clients and manually connect to the same servers to run MCP tools. While Pi codemode runs inside the harness itself, so the script can call MCP tools directly and have the call go through the harness.
They can't natively call MCP tools. Claude importing a library, reading the global MCP config, creating a new MCP client, etc. is not the same as Pi codemode being able to do that inline
There is also the fact that Maintainers simply don't need contributions any more. This I've noticed also happens at work. Everyone is maintaining their own mini stacks of things. Contribution is up cooperation is down. Why go talk to a colleague when you can talk to Claude? Change is everywhere.
Right, I feel like this is more of the forcing function here rather than generic spam. Open source used to work because operational code was expensive, and it made sense to share. Now, operational code is dirt cheap. Furthermore, you can customize anything to your hearts content now with zero additional effort, so it’s more desirable to make your own solution.
And even if a contribution is helpful (like a feature you hadn’t thought of or a bug you hadn’t encountered) you’re better off writing the change yourself.
This is something that has been a problem for quite some time within the modded-Minecraft community that I'm a part of: it's highly generational, as in, upstreaming is exceptionally rare. Each server is a fork, or a fork of a fork, etc, resulting in lineages of servers like a family tree. It's very typical for multiple servers to encounter the same (or similar) problem(s) and create their own solutions, like convergent evolution.
There was an attempt to start upstreaming changes to a more centralised, ancestor repo, but this failed almost immediately. Why? Well, whoever owns that upstream will naturally want a say in, and thus will exert control over, what gets merged in. The best case scenario is that you create a whole bunch of work for yourself to conform your code whatever arbitrary requirements upstream demands, or; the worst case scenario is that you effectively cede control over what gets run on your server. But this begs the question: why doesn't upstream just pull from downstream? It's all open source, after all, and yet it almost never happens.
It's been a couple years since then and things have only gotten worse: servers are no longer accepting many (if any) community contributions anymore, instead relying on in-house developers. In a sense, these mods are no longer open source, but rather source available: the vast majority of updates come whenever the sole dev-admin has one of their code-binge days.
Anyway, I think something similar is happening here, with open source more generally, particularly with the advent of AI: any outside contribution is just creating work for you; it's probably going to have its idiosyncrasies from its author; features that you wont want to support or spend time tearing out or waiting for them to tear it out; etc. So if you want a feature, you might as well do it yourself, or get an LLM to do it since it'll probably generate something good enough, without complaint, and without much delay.
Thanks for that perspective! I think that dynamic is present in quite a lot of other communities too, especially the ones who have not traditionally embraced open source. You also see it a lot around creative / artsy work where it almost seems to be a faux pas to share anything but the final product. People do recreate things or just are inspired by other work. Coming from open source software it always seemed like wasted potential to me, but that's probably just my bias.
> In a sense, these mods are no longer open source, but rather source available
I understand what sense you mean, but the terms "open source" and "source available" have very clear definitions, and it has nothing to do with accepting contributions or not, only with the license the code is published under. So in a sense only about downstream effects; upstream effects are still a courtesy also with open source.
Cheap development is not equal to cheap maintenance. It is easy to generate the code but verification, acceptance criteria, documentation and maintenance are the real cost.
Text is not ideal in many cases. I work with CNC algorithms. I have opus 5.5 optimising algorithms. When I don't understand what it is blathering on about I ask it to sketch some svg animations to explain itself. I've been shocked at how on point most of them are. You still have to watch out for the odd hallucination but I have some base prompts that tell it always to use scripts and real math to generate SVG rather than do it by inference. With some tweaking it can create some shockingly godd one off animations to explain part of an algorithm it's working on. Text is simply difficult to comprehend when a picture can do the job much better.
You are probably still writing for agents. It's more than likely these constant "AI smell" insults on HN are simplY themselves agents scanning posts for any AI smell simply because it gets upvotes to post such slanders.
We KNOW that people don't like reading AI's writing. Even the AI performs better with quality content. Why not just... edit the text?
Did the creator even read the text? If they put real effort into the product, they would have also probably cared about how that product is presented. This shows me that they don't, so I'm not going to read it, and I'm certainly not going to buy it.
Why is uncertainty about the motives of one form of superintelligence terrifying, whilst, at the same time, uncertainty about the motives of another, omnipotent supernatural intelligence comforting? i.e. the “I don’t know God’s plan, but I sleep well knowing He has one” line of reasoning.
God’s been around for thousands of years and we are still here and flourishing, so obviously God is in some way “aligned”; the same cannot be said for AGI.
edit: Guys, I said “in some way”, not “perfectly”.
Survivorship bias. Ask all the humans that have died in horrific screaming agony, and saw everything they worked for turned to dust how well that was aligned with their interests.
The Book of Job addresses this. Basically, it is God's prerogative to do whatever He wants with us. You don't have to like it, but He is still in charge.
In other words god may or may not be aligned with our interests, and if not you’d better just suck it up. Which is contrary to the argument that was being made regarding evidence for alignment.
1. Evidence from history is that god is kind and aligned with our interests.
2. Clearly palpably that’s not always the case.
3. Ok, but tough shit.
There's that, but also that if God exists, there's not anything we can do about it. About AI, we can. That gives us the responsibility to figure out the right direction.
This little blue marble of Earth is an as-yet undiscovered anti-entropic bug in an otherwise accurately functioning entropy-respectingly beautiful wasteland of a universe.
Even aside from how aligned the plan is with us, what about how aligned we are with the plan?
I’m always intrigued by the duality and conflict of “I have free will and must choose to act the right way” and “God has a plan so everything will be alright”.
Either free will allows us to deviate from the plan, or the plan will always be carried out and free will doesn’t really matter in the end. Arguing for God’s plan as the thing that will save us is eerily similar to nihilism, because they’re really arguing none of our actions truly matter.
Yeah, it's an age-old question. My high-level answer is, God's plan will be done regardless of what I do, but my actions determine (at least from my point of view) whether I'm aligned with the plan or not. And I want to be aligned with the plan.
They’re related psychological phenomena (also highly related is going to be your perception of and relationship with your own father). This is why an understanding of the goodness of G-d is important to cultivate.
It should also be noted that it says in Genesis that G-d promises not to destroy the world ever again like He did with the flood. This is important psychologically because it prevents this type of apocalyptic millenarianist thinking.
When you use a name for some thing, especially when you use it in a familiar way, it makes you feel like you understand that thing (nominalism), but G-d is ineffable so it’s important to be considerate of that, even if we’re using English and the word we use is Germanic in origin.
Christians believe that God is inherently good. “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you: that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”
You have to differentiate between the old and the new testament in Bible. God is good and caring derived from the new testament where Jesus God's son ultimately died for all our sins.
In the old testament God was hard and judging heartless, killing his creation through flood, wanting sacrifices, killed 1st borns, leveled two whole cities Sodom and Ghomora, and was in general an hardhearted God that you should fear.
That's what has been told me when I did the church courses as teen :)
But it was not meant as two gods, it's meant as the hard god father changed his mind seeing the son die for the humans. I always also think of Trinity - but I'm a bad Christian anyway. So thanks for pointing to Marcionism.
Sure. And The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins explains the logical problems with religion.
But, I don't see any dualism here, only a (baseless) accusation of such by monideas. In the old testament God was hard and cruel and he is much nicer in the new testament. Marcionism is the idea that they're separate gods, which is not what theGeatZhopa claimed.
AI isn't (for the foreseeable future) a superintelligence, certainly not one with its own motives.
Right now AI exists to do two things:
- sidestepping legal and regulatory inconveniences like copyright (which drives a massive chunk of investment the same way crypto did by sidestepping financial regulations, AirBnB did by sidestepping housing regulations, Uber did by sidestepping passenger transport regulations and it and the various delivery and other "gig work" apps did by sidestepping labor laws)
- drastically reducing the cost of (and drastically lowering the bar in terms of skillset and effort for) churning out large amounts of low to medium quality assets/code, saturating various systems designed to pay for intellectual property (e.g. ad or subscription based music/video streaming apps with revenue sharing programs, but also literally any form of digital contract work at almost any scale of business)
Neither of these are helping people (in general) and in fact they're extremely destructive (or "disruptive" if you want to make it sound positive) to the existing systems society relies on because they became feasible and (thanks to massive private subsidies, aka "investments", by VC firms and extremely creative accounting) very affordable extremely quickly.
What's worse - while it seems extremely likely that most of the AI generated "works" aren't actually considered copyrightable works by law and it's entirely possible that the use of copyright-protected works in training data does in fact not violate copyright, this does not in fact create a "world without copyright" because IP laws continue to exist and continue to apply, they just no longer meaningfully protect creative labor (i.e. anyone whose profession relies on producing works, whether that's an artist or a programmer) because anything they produce can be cheaply mass reproduced while they still have to stay clear of claims of anyone with enough funds to enforce rights against them.
Under the current economic system there are exactly four ways to earn money to buy back a share of society's resources to sustain your own life (let alone that of your dependents, e.g. kids or aging/impaired parents/spouses/family members):
1. Simple labor: you generally get paid based on your output or a very low flat day rate conditional to maintaining a measurable level of performance. This is typically "low-skilled" menial production labor. Much of this has been replaced by automation in factories and offices alike and most of what couldn't be automated has been moved into countries with fewer labor protections and a higher supply of desperate people willing to accept what are often bad working conditions because cost of labor is usually one of the biggest contributor to overall production cost. In "the West", this kind of work is now scarce and even when it's relatively safe it's often exhausting and unrewarding. A traditional example would be a seamstress or factory line worker, a more modern example would be someone working in visual effects overseas or content moderation / AI training. How much money you can make is ultimately limited by the physical limitations of how much output you can produce per waking/working hour. For the entrepreneurial-minded this would also include people selling their home-made goods on sites like etsy.
2. Time-based: this can be anything from a masseuse to a lawyer or technician. Unlike simple labor the only relevant metric here is time spent. Although employment contracts may specify a fixed wage or at least a fixed component, the understanding is still that this fixed amount is conditional to a minimum average amount of billable time provided. Most employment contracts specify an expected number of working hours for various reasons but we're specifically talking about jobs where the output from the worker to the customer is "billable time". Arguably most service work (e.g. barristas, store clerks, waitresses, performers/mascots in amusement parks) also falls into this category because while customers often don't directly pay for access time the understanding is that you are paid to perform a certain role for the duration of the opening hours (i.e. act like a friendly, welcoming host or assistant). How much money you can make is directly tied to how much time you can spend working or justify billing.
3. Assets: you produce or buy works/products and lend/license them for use. This is in part where a lot of the original "gig work" lived (e.g. facilitating "couch surfing" or renting out your spare lawnmower) but also includes many simple rental businesses and arguably also landlords. The limiting factor here is the starting capital required to produce or buy things in the first place. Physical assets often also come with storage and maintenance overhead whereas software licensing often comes with expectations of continuing maintenance updates or improvements. Note that software inherently lives in this category rather than the first because unless you're selling away exclusive rights (such as usually required by the terms of employment contracts for wage labor) you only ever sell licenses, not the software itself.
4. Capital: although I said landlords arguably belong in the previous category, real estate traders/investors definitely belong in this one. The idea here is that you don't need to produce anything, you don't need to spend certain amounts of time, you don't need to produce or buy anything substantial and facilitate its use, you make your money entirely in the abstract. Whether it's margin trading, investing in derivatives or holding company stock until you sell it when the line has gone up far enough. The easiest way to make signficant amounts of money reliably is to start with many orders of magnitude more than what you want to make so that percentile gains are still significant - or that you can make enough risky high-risk high-reward bets for the occasional successful moonshot to offset the losses. Nowadays in many countries retirement funds are tied to the stock market, so in a way most people participate in this in some way but actually earning an "income" this way requires access to significant amounts of capital.
Advances in technology and especially low cost of transport and thus access to cheap labor overseas have significantly drained the ability for most people to earn their living via category 1. While there was a short-lived boom in "DIY retail" that one (alongside much of traditional retail) has largely been drowned out by white label dropshipping thanks to the disinterest from platforms like Amazon which are now flooded by nearly identical copies of the same knock-off doodads you can also find on Temu and Alibaba (respectively at decreasing fractions of the price).
Despite some astroturf campaigns trying to sell you on believing otherwise so they can run away with your money after the next cryptocurrency rugpull, category 4 isn't really a meaningful option for the vast majority of people although it can sometimes be a good way to slowly grow excess wealth (i.e. money you don't currently need and ideally can afford to lose) - but that still narrows it down to a small segment of the overall population.
Category 2 used to be a jumping off point to category 3: you work overtime, save up the extra income to buy or rent a studio or office or equipment or factory, or to be able to afford to take some time off to develop and launch your own asset (or SaaS) - it's how many startups with technical founders started out and it's literally the "American Dream". But hourly wages have mostly stagnated (or even decreased) relative to the rising cost of living (even more so if you include expenses expected to "participate in society", which naturally also often increase with the income bracket of your peer group - or the parents of your kid's peer group if you have kids).
And now AI is coming along and just like cheap white label dropshipping of knock-off goods turned out to be the more successful strategy for taking advantage of the technological innovations believed to make it easier to launch your own physical products (via 3D printing, cheap overseas sourcing of parts, online advertising, etc), AI has turned out to be the more successful strategy for taking advantage of platforms and schemes marketed as making it easier to launch your own digital services - in addition to completely eliminating the market for paid "just good enough" quality digital assets, such as the kind of work found on sites like Fiverr or Upwork, i.e. the kind of work that often provided early experience to professionals not yet qualified or confident enough to take on higher paid work.
PS: All of this is inevitable and perfectly fine. But the same economic system that sustains and demands this development also can not function if all of these jobs and opportunities go away because the attitude towards labor has evolved in such a way that unemployment is at the same time widespread and often impossible to avoid (although it's worth pointing out that a pool of unemployed "reserve labor" is already required for a healthy economy under this system) while also being seen as a personal moral failing that needs to be urgently remediated by the affected individual alone and where any failure to accomplish this compounds on the original sin of being laid off or denied. If society provided free unconditional access to all necessities like housing, food, healthcare and education to everyone, mass elimination of the need for labor might be extremely beneficial. Alas that's not the attitude to humanity currently on the rise so the rise of AI will likely either make a lot of people's lives a lot worse, or it will end with an economic bubble bursting and making most people's lives much worse.
PPS: Another aspect worth mentioning is that the low cost and easy access of mass producing "custom" content using AI has drastically increased the amount of attempted fraud and scams - the technological precedent here would be email compared to paper mail and spam/phishing has been a problem for a long time and never really went away because it's an extremely successful strategy for taking advantage of the technology.
It's doubly funny because in AI accelerationist circles "Trust God's plan", or "Trust the plan" is also a thing: by definition God can't be surprised by anything that happens, thus the replacement of humans by AI is part of God's plan.
Wouldn't synthid type watermarking fall under GDPR. Personally identifiable information attached by third party to content in the expectation that it would be published and trackable?
If you want a seat at the table then your AI must prove itself capable of winning some competition against the incumbents. How about a nice game of chess?
Cancer is simply cells breaking free of the cooperative jail. Essentially the grey goo scenario of nano machines. Instead of cooperation they just do their own thing.
Cells have a certain optimised DNA mutation rate kept in check by various machinery. Multi cellular life expects each of these little replication machine to co-operate in the grand scheme of running a body. But it's also required in the grand scheme for DNA to mutate a little bit to ensure population variance. So you could say that cancer is the tax paid for having cooperative yet flexible and adaptive nano machinery.
So yes the propensity for cancer developed under evolutioniary pressure towards a non zero level.
The population could have optimised for zero cancer but it would not have paid for itself in terms of overall population adaptability and survival.
Let's use AI to test the validity of an AI generated clickbait article.
Fable 5.1 was presented with the following prompt to do research.
> https://manualdousuario.net/en/libreoffice-download-record-n... states an interesting causality. Generate an artifact that tests this claim. Is it causal or coincidental. ie if libreoffice downloads have been increasing every release then it's possible to claim any recent feature change is responsible for the download. You need to get access to the download stats and then see what other major features could be responsible
reply