FYI, the framework you are plugging is still private: https://github.com/scenarioai/scenario doesn't show up for me.

oh shoot, wrong link: https://github.com/langwatch/scenario

I think AI slop on the editor changed for me when I was typing it and I didn't notice

fixed now, thanks!

The fact that the actual implementation is in `lit` too is really helpful - getting to see how one would actually use this on a larger program does make it much more intriguing than the simple examples (and much more approachable than TeX itself).

https://github.com/zyedidia/Literate/tree/master/lit

The whole point of Conflict-free Replicated Data Types is that you don't need an authoritative server. You're thinking of Operational Transform which does require an authority.

While it is true that CRDTs don't require an authoritative server, the hub and spoke model (which could also be thought of as having a well-known always-online super peer) is more efficient and provides a better user experience. In practice most products that are built with CRDTs today use this model.

I may have worded that poorly but my intent was to suggest that it would work better if there wasn't a server.

I didn't know the name for the serverful alternative though, so thanks for that.

And yet vegetative life stops digesting when the plant dies. The mechanics are all still there, but we can not make them continue. To take an example dear to HN, we can't make the old American Chestnut trees "start" again once they have died.

Mothers are vulnerable too. All that means is that two vulnerable people need care. The law in some places says that only one of them does. Anywhere that it says that, it is wrong.

> If they then proceed to ostracise that person, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.

Agreed

> or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.

There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely not, it's harming both you and "Mx. Other" who you clearly love.

See https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).

They try so hard these days to put a "loving" spin on things but it's always the same when you get down to it.

"Sorry, gay people, your desires for sexual intimacy are actually just temptation from Satan / the corrupt nature you inherited from Adam and Eve. Now be celibate your whole life because you were born broken."

They don't say the last bit in so many words, of course.

They say the same thing to those with other sinful desires. Why is it loving to say "I know you've desired to live without eyes your whole life, but you need to accept that God didn't give you that cross" but unloving to say "I know you desire to act sexually with a member of the same sex, but God didn't make sexual relations for the purpose of unity only"?

Now explain why a sterile man and woman or a pair of hetero 65 year olds marrying isn’t “against nature” or a thwarting of the primary “reproductive purpose” of marriage.

That one’s always fun to watch.

Biblically, sex should only take place within a marriage. If it takes place within a marriage, the sex is sanctified, and non-sinful. Any sex that takes place outside the context of a marriage, is inherently sinful. That means adultery, abuse, and so on. Same-sex individuals simply cannot marry within the Biblical meaning of the term, which means that their sexual activity will not be sanctified, and will therefore be a sinful action by nature of what it is.

Being a homosexual or feeling attraction to your own sex is not sinful - it's a very difficult temptation that, with God's help, you are supposed not to give into. It's acting on this same-sex attraction that is sinful, in much the same way as acting on attraction to your neigbor's wife would be sinful.

Neither is a Josephite marriage [1], surprisingly. Isn't that wonderful?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage

The grand title [1] of Karl Franz Josef Ludwig Hubert Georg Otto Maria [2], the last Emperor of Austria is over 120 words:

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trento and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and on the Windic March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodeship of Serbia

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_title_of_the_emperor_of_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria#Titles,_s...

One way you could fix this with composition is:

    class CachedMetadataSource implements MetadataSource {
      CachedMetadataSource(MetadataSource uncachedSource) {}
      Metadata getMetadata() {
        if (metadata == null) {
          metadata = uncachedSource.getMetadata();
        }
        return metadata;
      }
    }

I don't see how that solves the problem. It seems like Video will need to keep it's own copy of CachedMetadaSource, which points back to itself, and go through that access it's metadata in the getMetadata implementation it makes available to it's users. At that point, it might as well just cache the value itself without the extra hoops. The difficult part isn't caching the value, it's preventing every class that implements MetadataSource from having to do so.

It would be the other way around. You wouldn't pass around the underlying suppliers directly, you'd wrap them. But if you must have state _and_ behavior, then `abstract class` is your friend in Java (while in Scala traits can have fields and constructors, so there is no problem).

Then you need to be able to formally prove the equivalence of various TLA+ programs (maybe that's a solved problem?)

No idea about SOTA but naively it doesn't seem like a very difficult problem:

- Ensure all TLA+ specs produced have the same inputs/outputs (domains, mostly a prompting problem and can solved with retries)

- That all TLA+ produce the same outputs for the same inputs (making them functionally equivalent in practice, might be computationally intensive)

Of course that assumes your input domains are countable but it's probably okay to sample from large ranges for a certain "level" of equivalence.

EDIT: Not sure how that will work with non-determinism though.

I didn't mean generate separate TLA programs. Rather, other LLMs review and comment on whether this TLA program satisfies the user's specification.

Do you presume that "what people do" is "what they should do"?

If you are suggesting that people shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of the jobs of others - my answer is a strong yes. People should strive for accuracy in all cases. But I did suggest that even if true it does not negate my assertion so I am failing to see the relevance. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.

Sorry, I was rather obscure - you said "My estimations don’t come from my assumption that other people’s jobs are easy, they come from doing applied research in behavioral analytics on mountains of data in rather large data centers."

And so I considered the preceding discussion in light of your last sentence. Which makes it sound like you are saying "I've observed the behavior of people and they're often flawed and foolish, regardless of the high ideals they claim to be striving for and the education they think they have. Therefore, they will do better with ChatGPT as a companion than with a real human being". But that's quite a few words that you may not have intended, for which I apologize!

What did you mean?

It wasn't that I observed them being foolish but many behaviors are subtly linked to intelligence and can be combined to create a proxy IQ. It also helps when people search their SAT scores. I noted that the people I typically interact with are much higher IQ than I had expected which incorrectly skewed my believe of the average higher. I noticed that other high IQ individuals were making the same assumptions. I had very much underestimated how little I interact with regular people.

I think we're already finding out that people are doing better with ChatGPT than with their peers, not all peers are created equal, and they can ask ChatGPT things that they cannot ask their peers. I think this trend will continue to the point that most people will prefer discussing things with ChatGPT than with their peers. Given what I know I predict this is a choice many people will make, I'm not passing judgment on that, it's a choice I've also made and I'm fortunate enough to have better peers than most.