afarviral
Joined 410 karma
- Very cool. I was thinking about something similar. In response to those saying it is not in the true spirit of Zettelkasten, that's probably fair, but this could easily incorporate your own notes/thoughts too, but you get to keep a convenient summary of the content you collected from outsite yourself. I think the other commentors may have missed the fact that while the LLM substitutes you, it does try to create new insights during the "Thread" part of the core loop.
- This is interesting, and I'll try to remember to give this a go next time I'm tempted to patch something from the standard library, but...
The README mentions 3 scenarios that this might be preferred over, but not the fourth which I regularly do: Create my own functions/classes that are composed from the unchanged modules. E.g. a request_with_retries function which adds retry logic to requests without the need to monkey patch. I regularly use decorators as well to add things like retries.
For more complex scenarios Modshim might win out, as mentioned in the understated section of the README "Benefits of this Approach":
> Internal Reference Rewriting: This example demonstrates modshim's most powerful feature. By replacing requests.sessions.Session, we automatically upgraded top-level functions like requests.get() because their internal references to Session are redirected to our new class.
> Preservation of the Original Module: The original requests package is not altered. Code in other parts of an application that imports requests directly will continue to use the original Session object without any retry logic, preventing unintended side-effects.
What I think this means is Modshim lets you really get in to the guts of a module (monkey-patch style, giving you god-like powers), while limiting the damage.
- How would you go about making it more secure but still getting to have your cake too? Off the top my head, could you: a) only ingest text that can be OCRd or somehow determine if it is human readable b) make it so text from the web session is isolated from the model with respect to triggering an action. Then it's simply a tradeoff at that point.
- This has been my experience as well, but there are plenty of assertions here that are not always true, e.g. "AI coding tools are sophisticated enough (they are not) to fix issues in my projects" … but how do you know this if you are not constantly checking whether the tooling has improved? I think for a certain level of issue AI can tackle it and improve things, but there's only a subset of the available models and of a multitude of workflows that will work well, but unfortunately we are drowning in many that are mediocre at best and many like me give up before finding the winning combination.
- I really like the idea of seeking a no (e.g. let me know if I shouldn't go ahead) but as soon as I add something like, "I will do this on this date, unless I hear otherwise", is a little aggressive feeling. It might be easy enough to simply mention the time the work will take place, but leave it unspoken that they could decide it's best to not proceed, "I should get it done around this time". Then again, it's been a goal of mine forever to be assertive. Cowing only takes you so far.
- When I researched it in the past I thought that multiple studies corroborated that while blood sugar doesn't increase from drinking artificially sweetened drinks that people who drink them still tend to gain weight. I'm not sure how those studies adjusted for things like people that already have metabolic syndrome who simply choose artificial sweetener for health reasons though?
It seems the most I would be comfortable concluding from recent reviews of studies is that there are some worrying findings, enough to warrant caution. If you can simply reduce your consumption of sugary foods and beverages I suspect it will reduce your craving better than a replacement stimuli. You can review some studies here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=obesity+artificial+swe...
It's a fallacy to draw conclusions from the number of studies/reviews supporting a given hypothesis, but the majority conclude that artificial sweeteners are associated with negative health effects and not a helpful tool for adiposity-related diseases.
- There's just no way I buy that I could safely make a change in a 100 loc function and know that there won't be an impact 30 lines down, where with a few additional function you can define the shape of interactions and know that if that shape/interface/type is maintained that there won't be unexpected interactions. Its a balance though as indirection can also readily hide and obscure interactions or add unnecessary glue code that also takes up mental bandwidth and requires additional testing to confirm.
- Oh right. Yes, I agree that motivated individuals get the work done for themselves and others. It's just that some people don't acknowledge that we collectively own problems/solutions because they are structural (inherent to the structures of our systems /"society") and tend to blame individuals for their own problems. Of course individuals can be wholey responsible for things, e.g. a corrupt politician. But getting rid of corruption is up to other individuals (I.e. society). It's idealist to imagine that a corrupt politician should just stop being corrupt, it's realistic to overthrow them collectively with other individuals (society).
- No. Everyone, instead of the affected person being blamed. Of course there are those in ivory towers doing a lot of waffling but the structural/societal view is always more productive than an individualist one which is ignoring the networked nature if reality in favour of optmistic idealism (bootstraps!).
- How can you say they don't reason if reasoning is required to produce high rates of success that previously have only been successfully answered using reasoning? Its not like they are guessing randomly but just cooindidentally having high rates of accuracy. They clearly have an emergent property of reasoning. Perhaps reasoning is too ill-defined of a word. They are deducing or calculating the answer from their being. What we call the thing that occurs when they produce an insightful answer is less telling than the fact that they produce answers previously only possible by thinking and reasoning humans.
- What's the difference between "talk" or "produce output" in your mind? I feel that automatic completion makes it sound as if the complete result was already supplied to the model or that it is akin to just the most probable next word from simple frequency rather than the "thinking" that is done by the model to produce the next token. Autocomplete doesn't adequately describe anything. Like imagine a hypothetical machine of infinite ability that still works in a way where it produces tokens in a series from previous tokens, you would still be arguing it is called autocomplete and bothering me.
- I've encountered this idea before from people with anti-woke tendencies; that they think woke people are holding them responsible for causing offense as though causing offense is the harm that the woke crowd believes needs to be stopped. Anyway, I just thought that view on things was funny. If anyone claiming to be woke does think this than they are more of a prude/puritanist/pedant than woke. I understand the thought that anti-woke people have but it's just a misunderstanding. The concern around hateful speech is around actual harm such as systematic ostracization of a group.
- Yes, that is the false-balance logical fallacy... Which seems to be the singularity around which people are circulating in this conversation. That's not to say that popularity of a certain view can't result in the suppression of those holding an opposing view, but what people seem to forget is one of those perspectives will actually be closer to the truth than the other (except rarely, when they are both off the mark by a long shot).
- This article talks as if the author is mystified by the concept of boundaries or as if this is a mirky concept. However, I think this has been fairly well layed out by writers on the topic of healthy psychological development. Those who overshare of are walled off have not developed boundaries according to many common theories around personal development. Thinking that one must divulge everything compulsively shows a lack of individuation and self reliance, while being overly walled off or detached is usually a poor coping strategy related to not trusting others. Finding a balance may not be so perilous with a few roleplays and rules of thumb.
- Agreed. There's a really specific form of nostalgia where a matured and adhd-managed person would simply LOVE to do school over again now they see the benefit and realise how absolutely fascinating and achievable learning is. Imagine how easy school would be for a mature adult! I wish being held back a couple of years was normal and encouraged, especially for boys. My life satisfaction would be way higher.
- Community gardens, sports, religious or interest groups, collectives, contributing in a large household, early work experience, hobbies/interests. It probably is a fairly finite list because societies have optimized for the individual and people are often only active within of a community at work or in education facilities. So a part of a solution in my view would be establishing more communities that are separate from the family... they might look a lot like schools though, so maybe we should just focus on those? There's more need for new communities to be established for other age ranges.
I hope it takes off!
I noticed it's a bit slow after clicking the title of a thread, unlike HN which is a bit more instantaneous. It wouldn't be a problem but it's the main interaction so worth double checking/optimizing.