Did you have previous experience with formal verification and/or dependent types?

But CNC machining still requires a ton of physical skills. Its true that you maybe aren't planning out and executing every single tool pass by hand but there is still a tremendous amount of knowledge and physical skill that goes into setting up, indicating parts, etc.

I never found a competent metaphor for LLMs taking over. Any tool brought up before still required skill and thought, and deep knowledge of its intricacies.

Can we please leave the fucking toads alone?

This is an endangered species getting massively abused by the wellness "shaman" industry. It fucking sucks. Just use synthetic 5me0-dmt if you really must do a goofy vision quest larp.

Hmm. I am all for leaving animals alone, but their Wikipedia page says their status is “secure” and of “least concern”.

So yeah, let the frogs be, but I don’t think we should invent (hallucinate, in this case, perhaps?) reasons why…

okay maybe i was wrong about them being technically endangered, i misread that somewhere. Still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be abusing animals to have pseudo-intellectual psychedelic experiences.

Your may have been thinking of peyote, which is somewhat endangered, and widely poached.

Is obesity more or less prevalent now versus 1991?

Well obviously it's more prevalent. But you don't know what the prevalence would have been had Mars bars not shrunk, ie it could have been worse.

Not that I actually believe that Mars bar size had any meaningful effect, but your rhetorical question is nonsensical.

I am responding to a comment that is framing the reduced size as a good thing from an obesity perspective...

The churn in this space puts javascript to shame. As an example, its only been a few months and AFAICT no one is even talking about openclaw anymore.

I agree but how many developers did you know making heavy use of it? It always seemed like it was a poorly thought out experiment that gained a lot of traction and hype from the non-technical crowd. I don't say that to be elitist, I just think that non-technical users need a much more consistent and constrained product because they can't really fix and upstream things themselves (even with the use of agents). For all the hype it got, not a single person from my circle installed it to even check it out.

I do agree that the current pace of abandonware creation is wild. I think a lot of projects are generated top down from an idea, and not bottom up through usage. If you have a new experimental project, and you don't have recent commits, I assume you are not using it and thus it has no value.

I think agentic use is mostly only valuable as author extension (help you search, rubber duck, generate code but needs very heavy review). Over time with enough usage of a process I do think some of them can turn into author automation but not from simply writing down an idea. It takes lots and lots of executions, iterations, generalizations, specifications, basically lots of work to get any decently hands-off intelligent automation through agents.

Did that get bought by openai? Lost its rogue cool factor.

Did not get bought by OpenAI. Creator was hired by OpenAI and they sponsor the project with tokens. OpenClaw is a non-profit now.

The problem is really that the promise was so big but the management and implementation was so painful, coupled with non-stop updates, coupled with far too big of an implementation surface.

A classic "lets solve 15 problems at once" situation, but none of them really well.

Maybe OpenClaw solved the problem it was designed to solve.

remember moltbook?

Waiting for the remaining broadcast equipment for my LPFM (www.kpbj.fm) to arrive! Then we finally get on the broadcast band. We have over 80 shows at this point. We still need fundraising support. If you are in Los Angeles and want to support freeform community please reach out.

Now I want a hat with the Agnostic Front logo but that says Pareto Front.

Correct. There are awful tricks to write [1] dependent Haskell but even then it isn't powerful enough and has a significantly worse user experience then a proper dependently typed proof checker (as bad as the UX is on those!).

That said there are other languages such as Agda, Idris, and Rocq that would be fantastic replacements to Lean, especially if you care about staying constructive.

1. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/slindley/papers/hasochism.pdf

I mentioned in another comment, but that worse user experience is also going to exist with Idris. It's not a theorem prover, you can just use it as one.

Idris has pi and sigma types, dependent pattern matching, view patterns, totality checking, proof search, interactive case splitting, etc, etc.

It is orders of magnitude better then Haskell where the best you can do is hacky bullshit with singletons, GADTs, and type families.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that still doesn't make it nice to use as a proof assistant. As you say, the UX isn't there, no matter how much more terse the type system is at certain things in native semantics. Idris is designed to express executable programs, it has a wildly different grain to it than Lean or any other system designed to be used as a general proof assistant from the ground up.

I agree that Lean or any of the other languages I listed would be a better choice then Idris and despite how I wrote my original post I wouldn't recommend Idris to someone who explicitly wanted a theorem prover.

I find that claude rarely uses its memories.

My experience talking with high level mathematicians is that they tend to know their subjects so well and are so excited to share it that they can and will scale their explanation to match their audience.

I mean, they likely have practice!

Dating or maybe a significant other, parents, siblings, any BBQ event IE any social event outside academia where someone asks "So what do you do?"

Not to forget mathematicians from other fields. They might be equally unfamiliar with most of our research topics.

Yes we do have plenty of practice adjusting our explanations to the audience.