Well, is this mad dash for AI producing "outcomes that are beneficial for society at large" yet? So far it looks like its mostly producing a ton of negative externalities and wealth transfer to corrupt elites.
Also, no, abandoning ethics is not an option, what a ridiculous suggestion.
We would not be able to agree on that. Already today, some of the people who would actually be able to unplug some of them (Anthropic) are worrying about "model welfare". I think you are not putting together how much of an anti-human death cult this is.
> WASI still leaves something to be desired. Why can't I have raw sockets and file access and stuff, in a POSIX-like way?
FWIW, that's exactly what they shipped first, with WASI preview 1 (wasip1). You can still use this today, and all runtimes with any level of WASI support will be able to run it.
Wasip1 did not specify sockets. Some implementations have made non-standard additions to add them, but sockets were not added to the standard until wasip2.
Most of the points listed are hardly considered lispy anymore these days, Python also has most of these.
Where Ruby's lisp lineage really shows is the fact that it's got Kernel#callcc, aka call with current continuation. It doesn't get any lispier than that!
It's a bit of in-group signaling but I think, importantly, also date signaling. A 2026 hype website looks different from a 2020 hype website looks different from a 2010 hype website. Having a generic 2026 hype website look tells visitors that you're either new or update your website's design to follow current trends.
They do the same with cars, where it's even more important and even more explicit. The design language has to change every couple years so that you can tell when somebody is driving a car older than 5 or so years. For example, currently we're doing blobs but with a few sharp features and muted colors. Before that it was more colorful and more metallic paint. Before that, in the 00s, it was pure blobs. Before that it was all sharp edges etc. Now sharp edges are beginning to make a comeback.
That's why I don't think we'll ever have the "one true design language". Fads and trends will continue, repeating themselves to a degree but also changing in new ways.
No. We have an infinitely more succinct formalism, it's Turing machines. Succinctness is not necessarily a desirable property, it just says where on the capability-tractability tradeoff something is. Turing machines can express literally anything computable, but in exchange we can't use computers to reason about them in general (Rice's Theorem). Regexes are much more limited, they famously can't even recognize HTML, but we get to automatically prove things about them.
Also, no, abandoning ethics is not an option, what a ridiculous suggestion.
reply