Your argument is "they're designed to influence us" right?
Amazon reviews are paid influence. Reddit posts are paid influence. Everything everywhere you read online is paid influence. I'd rank LLMs between "people I personally trust" and "random people online."
For me, for now, they are. And being "many random people" and not "random person", they average out into something much more trustworthy than even recommendations from most individuals I know personally.
Operative word is "for now" - LLMs caught entrepreneurs unprepared, but they'll catch up and poison this too, same thing that happened with search giving rise to SEO.
> Yes, but the exact FP idea here is that this distinction is meaningless; that curried functions are "actual results".
Everyone knows that. At least everyone who would click a post titled "A case against currying." The article's author clearly knows that too.
That's not the point. The point is that this distinction is very meaningful in practice, as many functions are only meant to be used in one way. It's extremely rare that you need to (printf "%d %d" foo). The extra freedom provided by currying is useful, but it should be opt-in.
Just because two things are fundamentally equivalent, it doesn't mean it's useless to distinguish them. Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things; and engineering is the art of giving different names to the same thing depending on the context.
Not when a language embraces currying fully and then you find that it’s used all the fucking time.
It’s really simple as that: a language makes the currying syntax easy, and programmers use it all the time; a language disallows currying or makes the currying syntax unwieldy, and programmers avoid it.
But arguably your intent would be much more clear with something like `map (printf "%d %d" m _) ns` or a lambda.
I don't think parent is saying that partial application is bad, far from it. But to a reader it is valuable information whether it's partial or full application.
Not really when reading `iter (printf %"d %d" m) ns`, I am likely to read it in
three steps
- `iter`: this is a side-effect on a collection
- `(printf`: ok, this is just printing, I don't care about what is printed, let's skip to the `)`
- ns: ok, this is the collection being printed
Notice that having a lambda or a partial application `_` will only add noise here.
> But to a reader it is valuable information whether it's partial or full application.
This can be a valuable information in some context, but in a functional language, functions are values. Thus a "partial application" (in term of closure construction) might be better read as a full application because the main type of concern in the current context is a functional type.
I believe one of the main reasons that F# hasn't never really taken off is that Microsoft isn't afraid to borrow the good parts of F# to C#. (They really should've ported discriminated unions though)
Currently DUs are slated for the next version of c# releasing end of this year. However last I knew they only come boxed which at least to me partly defeats the point of having them (being able to have multiple types inline because of the way they share memory and only have a single size based on compiler optimizations).
Yeah, especially in F#, a language that means to interpolate with .Net libraries (most not written with "data input at last" mindset.) now I'm quite surprised that F# doesn't have this feature.
> Before the war, about 138 ships passed through the strait each day according to the Joint Maritime Information Centre, carrying one fifth of the global oil supply.
> The data provided by shipping analysts Kpler shows 99 vessels passing the narrow strait so far this month, an average of just 5-6 vessels a day.
I mean, it's bad, but it's factually not a minefield. The threat isn't coming from mines anyway.
You can sometime run a quick second check by taking the AI's claim and asking it for an evaluation within a fresh context. It won't be misled by the surrounding text and its answer will at least be somewhat unbiased (though it might still be quite wrong).
It helps if you phrase the question openly, not obviously fishing for a yes-or-no answer. Or, if you have to ask for a yes-or-no question, make it sound like you're obviously expecting the answer that's actually less likely, so the AI will (1) either be more willing to argue against it, or (2) provide good arguments for it you might not have considered, because it "knows" the answer is unexpected and it wants to flatter your judgment.
> It helps if you phrase the question openly, not obviously fishing for a yes-or-no answer. Or, if you have to ask for a yes-or-no question, make it sound like you're obviously expecting the answer that's actually less likely,
I do this all the time and hate that I have to do it, with the additional "do not yes-man me, be critical."
Yeah, enormously.
People will hedge depending on how sure they are about something. They might also have credentials in whatever you ask them, if you get legal advice from a lawyer, that can be judged to be more reliable than from a lay person.
Relationships with real people are pretty cool actually.
If you talk to people that you have a longer relationship with, you might also be able to judge their areas of expertise and how prone to bullshitting they are.
Amazon reviews are paid influence. Reddit posts are paid influence. Everything everywhere you read online is paid influence. I'd rank LLMs between "people I personally trust" and "random people online."
reply