I wonder why, too. Now, you can give me a reply for why you think that is, which you could have done without this comment, or you can just keep adding noise to this thread. Up to you.
Cargo only recompiles the crates that you edit, after the first build of the dependent crates it's quick to iterate.
Compilation is not the bottleneck, it's the human (me) in the loop that's doing the thinking and typing.
The productivity boost comes from Rust's strong type system and ownership (much better than MyPy) which practically ensures that if it compiles, it will work. There's a lot less troubleshooting/debugging of my Rust "scripts" than when I wrote Python.
> I very much think that AIs with minds are possible
The real question here is how would _we_ be able to recognize that? And would we even have the intellectual honesty to be able to recognize that, when at large we seem to be inclined to discard everything non-human as self-evidently non-intelligent and incapable of feeling emotion?
Let's take emotions as a thought experiment. We know that plants are able to transmit chemical and electrical signals in response to various stimuli and environmental conditions, triggering effects in themselves and other plants. Can we therefore say that plants feel emotions, just in a way that is unique to them and not necessarily identical to a human embodiment?
The answer to that question depends on one's worldview, rather than any objective definition of the concept of emotion. One could say plants cannot feel emotions because emotions are a human (or at least animal) construct; or one could say that plants can feel emotions, just not exactly identical to human emotions.
Now substitute plants with LLMs and try the thought experiment again.
In the end, where one draws the line between `human | animal | plant | computer` minds and emotions is primarily a subjective philosophical opinion rather than rooted in any sort of objective evidence. Not too long ago, Descartes was arguing that animals do not possess a mind and cannot feel emotions, they are merely mimicry machines.[1] More recently, doctors were saying similar things about babies and adults, leading to horrifying medical malpractice.[2][3]
Because in the most abstract sense, what is an emotion if not a set of electrochemical stimuli linking a certain input to a certain output? And how can we tell what does and what does not possess a mind if we are so undeniably bad at recognize those attributes even within our own species?
No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because that interests you doesn't mean that it's "the real question".
> would we even have the intellectual honesty
Who is "we"? Some would and some wouldn't. And you're saying this in an environment where many people are attributing consciousness to LLMs. Blake Lemoine insisted that LaMDA was sentient and deserved legal protection, from his dialogs with it in which it talked about its friends and family -- neither of which it had. So don't talk to me about intellectual honesty.
> Can we therefore say that plants feel emotions
Only if you redefine emotions so broadly--contrary to normal usage--as to be able to make that claim. In the case of Strong AI there is no need to redefine terms.
> Now substitute plants with LLMs and try the thought experiment again.
Ok:
"We know that [LLMs] are able to transmit chemical and electrical signals in response to various stimuli and environmental conditions, triggering effects in themselves and other [LLMs]."
Nope.
"In the end, where one draws the line between `human | animal | plant | computer` minds and emotions is primarily a subjective philosophical opinion rather than rooted in any sort of objective evidence."
That's clearly your choice. I make a more scientific one.
"Because in the most abstract sense, what is an emotion if not a set of electrochemical stimuli linking a certain input to a certain output?"
It's something much more specific than that, obviously. By that definition, all sorts of things that any rational person would want to distinguish from emotions qualify as emotions.
Bowing out of this discussion on grounds of intellectual honesty.
Or when you enable optimizations and since accessing an object with invalid state is UB, the compiler helpfully decides it is now permitted to format your hard drive.
Almost all open-source software comes with a version of the following license terms:
"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."
To use the software you have to accept the license, which means you explicitly confirm that they are not your supplier. Pretty clear cut, no?
Edit: EULA-loving companies don't want to accept the license terms for the _free_ software they themselves are using - the hypocrisy is nothing short of staggering.
Do you mean to say that Sarbox might preclude this? Or that it should have been banned already? The meaning isn't clear to me and I would be grateful for further explanation.
Not the grandparent, but Airflow is painfully slow and inefficient.
Our reinvented wheel using posgresql, rabbitmq and EC2 runners has ~10x better throughput and scales linearly with the number of pending tasks, whereas the airflow falls apart and fails to keep the runners fully occupied the moment you out any real load on it.
GraphQL APIs can easily DOS your backend if you don't configure extra protections (which are neither bulletproof nor enabled by default), they suffer from N+1 inefficiencies by default unless you write a ton of extra code, and they require extra careful programming to apply security rules on every field which can get very complex very fast.
On the plus side, it does have offer communication advantages if you have entirely independent BE and FE teams, and it can help minimize network traffic for network-constrained scenarios such as mobile apps.
Personally, I have regretted using GraphQL every time.
