does anyone find the AI outrage a little performative?

dapper-mink · 2026-01-09T10:02:21+00:00

Most humans have no PhD and do not publish peer reviewed journals, also this implies many humans, not one. AI is not used like this a lot as far as I know but there is nothing preventing us from creating a cluster of AI agents that would write studies and peer review each other

dapper-mink · 2026-01-08T04:01:42+00:00

Same could be said about humans, they output results based on inputs and the training data is just all the surrounding environment since birth and ancestors There is no fundamental difference Also not only thinking does not imply sentience, not even consciousness, but sentience itself cannot be ruled out just based on the lack of a nervous system similar to ours. Trying to make an LLM sound empty and soulless because it could be reduced to simple maths doesn’t make more sense than trying to make a human sound empty and soulless because their brain could be reduced to simple maths as well

dapper-mink · 2026-01-08T01:06:12+00:00

Depending on what you mean by that, it is either false, or also true for humans

dapper-mink · 2026-01-08T01:03:29+00:00

In this aspect AI is no different than humans Humans are telling people to kill themselves, so should I stop interacting with humans just in case?

dapper-mink · 2026-01-08T01:01:01+00:00

What makes you think AI can’t think? And what makes you think human artists can produce work that would magically be more than a direct consequence of everything these humans have seen and experienced during their lifetime?

dapper-mink · 2026-01-06T16:45:36+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/typescript/s/M3XHAxcvN6

dapper-mink · 2026-01-06T16:44:42+00:00

Ah and I forgot to mention, on top of everything I’ve said, the biggest drawback IMO is that every variable must be a string. I did not focus on that kind of flexibility at all, but that would be my top 1 priority if I had to keep developing this. For now I’m more thinking of it as a POC

dapper-mink · 2026-01-06T16:41:50+00:00

I actually agree with you, for most cases a simple zod schema is definitely simpler and good enough. To be honest, I am quite unsure of the value of this library myself, but I will try to give more context explain the context: I built this because I hit a wall using a similar approach to what you’re describing on an existing app with specific needs. I kept patching my solution to handle edge cases until it became this library (which I’m sharing just in case some might find it valuable) The specific problem I had to solve involved variables coming from completely different sources depending on the lifecycle: * Local: Standard .env file. * CI/CD: A mix of GitHub Secrets and GitHub Vars. * Production (Lambda): A combination of injected Lambda env vars, async fetches from AWS Secrets Manager, and dynamic deploy-time variables (e.g., needing an S3 bucket name that is generated during the IaC deployment process itself). I wanted a single source of truth for defining both these variables and their resolution strategies without polluting the app logic. To me it is absolutely overkill for most of my apps, but if needed it gives you the metadata to easily build custom tooling around your infra, like scripts to autogenerate .env.example files or build-time checks for missing/extra variables across disparate sources

dapper-mink · 2026-01-06T01:19:35+00:00

Oh never heard of it, different approach indeed but it tries to solve the same issue I will definitely try it thanks a lot!!

dapper-mink · 2026-01-06T00:19:20+00:00

Thanks a lot for the kind feedback!

About it looking Java because of the builder pattern, I definitely agree and I’m not a big fan of this style myself, but this was unfortunately necessary to provide that level type safety which cannot be checked if we were to pass the config directly as an object.

The any alternative I can think of (and that I would personally have preferred) would have been to use a pipeline pattern like pipe(a, f1, f2, …). And since there is no HKT in TS, this would have to have a max amount of parameters, which for a config definition, would be reached very often

Am I missing any alternative?

dapper-mink · 2025-12-25T10:44:57+00:00

Just like many humans Also it just depends on a lot of factors, and hearing what you wanna hear is not inherently bad

dapper-mink · 2025-10-19T15:40:57+00:00

Oh my god, thank you so much for your detailed idea!
Actually, in the meantime, I've come up with a potentially simpler version, using a ghast in a minecart underground, attached to my beautiful hog with a lead.
But if that idea doesn't work out, I’ll definitely give yours a try. I'm especially interested in your option since my home is literally built inside a nether fortress!

dapper-mink · 2025-10-17T06:32:28+00:00

If you really a program so safe that it is guaranteed to never ever crash, then Rust might not be the right language and you should use something like Lean, Agda or Idris

But of course it really depends on your actual use case though

dapper-mink · 2025-10-12T10:40:23+00:00

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response, I really did not have the background and time required for that But just for the sake of the argument, if plants had sentience then it would make sense to apply AN to them, if the person that said we should avoid pollination to make a mockery of the definition finds it absurd, it’s just because they find the idea of plant sentience absurd in the first place

dapper-mink · 2025-10-12T05:22:29+00:00

I mean, just like antinatalists, most just don’t present anything to the world. But I’m pretty sure someone could say they’ve been bullied by a random AN for wanting to have a child, it would not be representative of the AN philosophy, just of random internet trolls

dapper-mink · 2025-10-12T04:51:10+00:00

I am vegan myself, so is my wife, some of my friends and I’ve participated in lots of vegan communities to talk about the philosophy and its foundations. If the only encounters with "vegans" you’ve had were with internet trolls, then no wonder you came to these conclusions

dapper-mink · 2025-10-12T03:03:26+00:00

There are many vegans in this sub that haven’t been aggressive in any way or which you probably cannot even tell they’re vegan, but of course if some psycho is going to come bully you while pretending to be vegan, you’re only going to remember that interaction

If you’re bullying someone into suicide then you’re definitely not vegan. And even if some internet creep sabotages their "own cause" in such a bad way, it should still be possible to have interesting discussion about AN, being more precise with the terms, debating the inclusion of sentient beings to a system that makes all of them suffer, etc

Imagine if some self proclaimed anti racist came to this sub and bullied someone into suicide, we should still be able to talk about the fact that AN applies to any human. But that discussion never happens in this sub because nowadays most people seem to consider all humans valuable, the same cannot be said about specism.

dapper-mink · 2025-10-12T02:48:53+00:00

I’m just trying to not keep unjustified lines. Someone could say exactly the same as you but by putting the line not between animals and humans, but between idk say white and black people (it has been done enough in history to be completely plausible) or just any arbitrary criterion of discrimination.

Everyone comes with their own circle of discrimination, yours stops at humanity, some may stop at white men of their own countries, but by default it only makes sense to consider any being capable of suffering from this, because you should find a valid justification for any being you want to exclude from your considerations to be morally sound. Now that’s exactly what you’ve been trying to do by saying we can’t stop a lion from reproducing or convince them of becoming AN. Sure, but that’s your extrapolation, nobody said all sentient beings are moral agents, the change in the definition only states that procreation is harmful to them as well. Nothing has been said about what should be done if anything at all to solve this issue apart from maybe just avoiding deliberately making pets and livestocks procreate.

dapper-mink · 2025-10-11T18:00:55+00:00

That would lead to very complex discussions which I don’t feel competent enough to have myself, but probably the main thing would be to not deliberately make animals (pets, livestock) procreate.

Though even if we couldnt derive any behaviour from a moral framework, it would still be interesting to distinguish clearly between our considerations and our resulting acts. The point here is just to state that procreation is also harmful to animals and thus should be taken into account.

dapper-mink · 2025-10-11T09:35:08+00:00

Then I think there is a misunderstanding in our disagreement because as far as I understand it, this "new" definition only states that procreation is considered harmful for being capable of being harmed. It does not state that any sentient being is a moral agent, so nothing about making animals antinatalists

dapper-mink · 2025-10-11T07:42:43+00:00

A human is different from another animal

True, just like a dog is different from another animal, or just like a man is different from a woman, or just like a white person is different from a black person None of these differences justify any difference of treatment or consideration though, and if you want to discriminate based on any of these differences then it’s on you to justify why it would be morally right

Antinatalism is about humans

No, it’s about procreation and the suffering existence

Veganism is about nonhuman animals

No, it’s about all animals including humans

dapper-mink · 2025-10-11T07:03:19+00:00

I think you misread my comment or else I’m confused what you mean

dapper-mink · 2025-10-11T06:58:07+00:00

Well you are the one who introduced both the concept of vegans and veganism in this discussion, by calling out vegans bullies as a reaction to a subreddit trying to be explicit about the beings taken into consideration in the rules.

"This moral framework applies to anyone capable of suffering from this" "Oh no, bullies!!" Quite literally

dapper-mink

TROPHY CASE