Experiment for yourself. The Buddhists have kept a tradition that makes falsifiable claims and provides steps for reproduction. I have reproduced some of these claims myself.
What differentiates this practice from the natural science is its study of subjective phenomena, as opposed to objective physicalities.
We've banned this account for egregiously violating HN's guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't do this here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We've banned this account for egregiously violating HN's guidelines and using multiple accounts abusively. You can't do those things here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You must learn to sit perfectly still with every muscle tense for long periods.
Various things will happen to you while you are practising these positions; they must be carefully analysed and described.
Note down the duration of practice; the severity of the pain (if any) which accompanies it, the degree of rigidity attained, and any other pertinent matters.
When you have progressed up to the point that a saucer filled to the brim with water and poised upon the head does not spill one drop during a whole hour,
and when you can no longer perceive the slightest tremor in any muscle; when, in short, you are perfectly steady and easy, you will be admitted for examination;
and, should you pass, you will be instructed in more complex and difficult practices.
I assumed this was referring to a simple seated position, but I was incorrect. He had people in some odd poses for meditation. Thank you for posting the source.
With proper management of windows and screen real-estate as well as minimizing or even eliminating mouse usage I can hypothesize a 5000x speedup due to your greater ability to orchestrate and coordinate agents at scale.
Yes... I've asked for the same - show us the goods with a Destroy All Software style screencast; otherwise the default position is that this entire HN post is just more AI generated hallucination.
I'd happily demonstrate this kind of workflow on my day job if not for company trade-secrets.
That's as legacy as it gets, 20+ year old code base with several "strata" of different technologies and approaches.
Claude Opus handily navigates around it, and produces working bug fixes with minimal guidance.
I'm not going to claim it's 20x or 50x yet, there's still navigation and babysitting involved, but it's definitely capable of working on complex problems, I just don't trust it to run it in YOLO mode.
The key thing is, you need domain knowledge. You need to know where to correct it, and which direction to point it in.
It's not magic, and it will have bad ideas. The key picking out the good ideas from the bad.
Hi eterm, this is very relevant to me as I'm building a self-hosted open-source tool for legacy code comprehension (AI/ML final project).
You mentioned "navigation and babysitting", could you share what that looks like in practice? Do you have to spend time reconstructing context or correcting Claude's misunderstandings? Do you still need to interrupt colleagues for some tacit knowledge, or has that changed?
I don't know. There's lots of options. At the extreme ends it would be interesting to see these agents work on something like boost, or metamath/set.mm, to choose deliberately obtuse candidates. Perhaps a web browser.
I don't know. You may as well say that after reading Uncle Bob's Clean Code and adding 50 layers of indirection, you are now writing at "enterprise scale." Perhaps you even hired an Agile SCUM consultant, and now look at your velocity (at least they're measuring something)!
Use my abstract factory factories and inversion of control containers. With Haskell your entire solution is just a 20-line mapreduce in a monad transformer stack over IO. In J, it's 20 characters.
I don't see how AI differs. Rather, the last study of significance found that devs were gaslighting themselves into believing they were more productive, when the data actually bore the opposite conclusion [0].
Comments exist to provide information beyond primitive, domain-agnostic types (String, Int, etc.), but without the overhead of more elaborate modelling into domain-specific types (ChequingAccounts, Widgets, and so forth).
I may want to communicate further information about the inhabitants or values of a particular type, without introducing extraneous or superfluous types:
-- given a path to a PEM encoded PKCS#8 formatted RSA private key and a
-- JWT Claims Set (RFC 7519) represented as a strict ByteString,
-- return a strict ByteString representing a base64 encoded RSA256-signed JWS.
generateJWT :: FilePath -> B.ByteString -> IO (Maybe B.ByteString)
generateJWT fp claims = (fmap unJwt <$>) . (maybe (return Nothing) (fmap eitherToMaybe . encodeClaims) =<<)
$ fromPKCS8 fp
where eitherToMaybe = preview _Right
encodeClaims = (flip $ rsaEncode RS256) claims
Arguably newtype wrappers could (or even should) be introduced in place of the more primitive FilePaths and ByteStrings - but even if they were, the type names would either be prohibitively long, or fail to communicate the full depth of information of the comment.
> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did.
This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's definition - whatever you want to call it, it's the ability to have your cake and eat it too by simply changing your definitions, or even someone else's, post hoc.
Let us take a moment to be reminded of the English Socialism of Orwell and doublespeak.
> the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell
I live in Wyoming and have MAGA and ultra-progressive friends.
Multiple messaging is a hallmark of all elites. Sometimes it’s functional: being able to say something sharp that if repeated is ambiguous is a skill. Anyone who has any power or authority wields it. It is so common to suggest requirement. (Other times, multiple messaging lets one apologise in a public setting without making things awkward.)
In many respects, it’s an essential feature of commanding language. Compressing multiple meanings into fewer words is the essence of poetry and literature.
> In many respects, it’s an essential feature of commanding language. Compressing multiple meanings into fewer words is the essence of poetry and literature.
Aye, perhaps prompting is the be-all-end-all skill, after all: the ability to distill out an idea into its most concentrated, compressed essence, so it can be diluted, expanded, and reworded ad infinitum by the LLMs.
brb while I search for the word prompt that generated the universe...
> the ability to distill out an idea into its most concentrated, compressed essence, so it can be diluted, expanded, and reworded ad infinitum by the LLMs
Nobody said people haven’t rendered themselves unable to understand poetry or literature through the ages. Nor that these skills haven’t had a distinct class mark to them.
Same here. Someone who relies on LLMs to speak and read will not be able to compete in a live environment. (Someone who uses them as a tool may gain an advantage. But that’s predicated on having the base skill.)
That's an interesting image, having a mobile connections to AI and having it tell me what I should say in any interactive situation. But, I don't think you would get much respect from other people if that is all we do. Gaining the respect of others I believe is the way to succeed in life.
Further much anybody could repeat that, make AI responsible for all their speech, and even actions. But less we use our own brains, the less we learn, and thus cannot gain a competititve advantage over other AI-users. The most rewarded original thoughts and ideas probabaly need to come from outside of AI since AI is trained on people's original text outputs.
"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.
Fascists are the ones who want to manipulate other people to their Fuhrer's will. To do that they must manipulate language. Whereas "socialists" are about the common good, which can only happen through peaceful co-existence, which can only happen though democracy.
Depends of course on which definition of "socialism" you use. Didn't Hitler call his movement socialism as well? But I always associated "socialism" with "being social", which means taking into account other people's benefit as well, instead of trying to overpower them with propaganda and double-speak (and of course, violence).
If the goal is unlimited power to your party, to your leader, it would only make sense to lie to people as much as you can, to mislead them. To double-speak to them. If your goal is peaceful co-existence, then not so much.
And where there's smoke there is fire. Where there's Double-Speak, fascism is not far away.
Ironically Double-Speak succeeds because people are social beings, they really WANT to agree with others.
"Illegal alien" is one of the greatest accomplishments of language engineering and was unambiguously successful.
When the left tries this today it results in equal and opposite backlash and has no effect in terms of policy, winning elections, and that sort of stuff, but it certainly can be a motor that keeps online bubbles bubbling.
I think there is no equivocation or ambiguity here, unless you are me at age 5 asking why aliens have landed in Mexico.
I would hazard that you are underestimating the impact of these rhetorical tactics, but I've not the energy to aggressively litigate and cite this point further.
The effectiveness of these tactics is incredible, it helps people who build an identity around marginalization to always feel marginalized. If they ever won anything it would threaten their whole reason for existence.
Again, I think this is likely seen differently depending on which side of the political spectrum one stands, and what sources of information one attunes to. I agree that both 'racism' and 'gender' have become flash-points for discord, and that one can point to the left as trying to change the definitions. But I can think of other words that the right is equally guilty of attempting to re-define. For example, 'woke' was a term originally rooted in African American communities meaning awareness of systemic injustice, but is now used by the right as pejorative for anything they disagree with. (Including the existence of systemic injustice, sigh.)
What differentiates this practice from the natural science is its study of subjective phenomena, as opposed to objective physicalities.
https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-k...