It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, & that which depends on it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is, by figures & motions, And, supposing that there were a mechanism so constructed as to think, feel & have perception, we might enter it as into a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a perception. This must be sought, therefore, in the simple substance, & not in the composite or in the machine. — Gottfried Leibniz, Monadology, sect. 17
Except that is not true. Single-celled organisms perform independent acts. That may be tiny, but it is intelligence. Every living being more complex than that is built from that smallest bit of intelligence.
Bending over backwards to avoid any hint of anthropromorphization in any LLM thread is one of my least favorite things about HN. It's tired. We fucking know. For anyone who doesn't know, saying it for the 1 billionth time isn't going to change that.
I looked this up the other day and "reasoning" in AI is used as far back as McCarthy (1959), and was certainly well established for expert systems in the 80s, so I think it's a little late to complain about it.
McCarthy wasn't infallible & the initial founders of the field were so full of themselves that they thought they were going to have the whole thing figured out in less than one summer. The hype has always been an established part of the AI culture but the people who uncritically buy into it deserve all the ridicule that comes their way.
Computers can't think. Boolean logic is not a sufficient explanation for cognition & never will be.
I've heard that enough times to know it's a meme b/c no one who says that has an answer why classical computers can not do what a single cell can do. This is before we even get to the unphysical abstractions of infinite tapes & infinite energies inherent in the notion of a Turing machine.
Basically, your position is not serious b/c you haven't actually thought about what you're saying.
Yeah something like 10-15 years ago I thought for just the simple action of printing a file, it was way easier in Ubuntu than Windows, simply because they included a lot of drivers in the distro by default, while in Windows land I still had to visit the printer manufacturer's website for drivers -- or use the included CD! I try to avoid needing to do anything more complex than that. (Scanning I've always done with a USB stick plugged directly into the printer.) Things kind of got worse again in recent years with the removal of the standalone GUI for administration in favor of a web interface, and various ongoing modularization efforts, in theory cups3 will work even better and only support IPP/AirPrint: https://openprinting.github.io/current/#the-new-architecture...
at least for awhile this is how bluesky/atproto worked. afaik they only ran into issues when the number of users on each server overwhelmed how many files would fit comfortably in a single directory (which is obviously a large number)
my understanding matches yours. I don't think this article is particularly clear about why rapid7 would threaten to disclose a vulnerability before a patch is ready and then subsequently get angry that jetbrains put out a patch to fix the issue
