Readit News> it’s not trivial to manage the whole environment needed to run the application
This is a distinctly Linux problem. Despite what Linux would lead you to believe it is not actually hard to run a computer program.
Rebuilding? No. Linux package management is so-so at allowing you to compile programs. But they’re dogshit garbage at helping you reliably run that program. Docker exists because Linux can’t run software.
There's a reason everyone uses it for ops these days, and not some Windows thing.
Real life software outside of Linux is pretty much just downloading and running it. Only in Linux we don't have a single stable OS ABI, forcing us to find the correct package for our specific distro, or to package the software ourselves.
I’m increasingly convinced that the mere existence of a package manager (for programs, not source code) is a sign of a failed platform design. The fact that it exists at all is a miserable nightmare.
Flatpak and Snap tried to make this better. But they do too much which just introduced new problems.
Steam does not have this problem. Download game, play game. Software is not that complicated.
Real life software is much more than just downloading a game and running it.
That shouldn't even be controversial, I don't think?
You wrote "The text that comes out follows some statistical distribution".
At the risk of being over my head here did you mean the text can be described statistically or "follows some statistical distribution". Are these two concepts the same thing? I don't think so.
A program by design follows some statistical distribution. A human is doing whatever electrochemical thing it's doing that can be described statistically after the fact.
Regardless my point was pretty simple, I know this will never happen but I wish tech people would drop this tech language when describing humans and adopt neuroscience language.
Doesn't matter what they think in. A token can be a letter or a word or a sound. The point is that the box takes some sequence of tokens and produces some sequence of tokens.
> You wrote "The text that comes out follows some statistical distribution". > At the risk of being over my head here did you mean the text can be described statistically or "follows some statistical distribution". Are these two concepts the same thing? I don't think so. > A program by design follows some statistical distribution. A human is doing whatever electrochemical thing it's doing that can be described statistically after the fact.
Again, it doesn't matter how the box works internally. You can only observe what goes in and out and observe its distribution.
> Regardless my point was pretty simple, I know this will never happen but I wish tech people would drop this tech language when describing humans and adopt neuroscience language.
My point is neuroscience or not doesn't matter. People make the claim that "the box just produces characters with some stochastic process, therefore it's not intelligent or correct", and I'm saying that implication is not true because there could just as well be a human in the box.
You can't decide whether a system is intelligent just based of the method with which it communicates.
Deleted Comment
You are in my mind rightfully getting pushback for writing "human experts also output tokens with some statistical distribution. "
You have a big opaque box with a slot where you can put text in and you can see text come out. The text that comes out follows some statistical distribution (obviously), and isn't always the same.
Can you decide just from that if there's an LLM or a human sitting inside the box? No. So you can't make conclusions about whether the box as a system is intelligent just because it outputs characters in a stochastic manner according to some distribution.
One thing humans tend not to do is confabulate entirely to the degree that LLMs do. When humans do so, it's considered a mental illness. Simply saying the same thing in a different way is not the same as randomly randomly syntactically correct nonsense. Most humans will not, now and then, answer that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the sun rises in the southeast.