FernandoTN

I think you're overlooking the fact that for long-horizon tasks, even small errors compound over time and can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

For simple queries, we have reached the threshold since the beginning of the year, and models are good enough from every provider to make a meaningful difference between one another. (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, MuseSpark, Kimi, DeepSeek, GLM...)

The real unlock will be, and you can already see it with GPT-5.6 and Fable-5, to delegate complex enough tasks that will take more than 24 hours to get done and they will not lose track. I'm not talking about a loop, but the actual intelligence to recover from these compounding errors that accumulate in dumber models.

We're still a long way from the intelligence needed to let one of these agents go ahead and supervise multiple layers of sub-agents underneath to do complex orchestration. The future looks very promising and exciting. Imagine having the possibility of a Frontier model orchestrating as many sub-agents as needed that are running on cheaper models like DeepSeek.

Very interesting and I would also love to export my own data! Care to share/elaborate a little further how you went into doing this, especially with platforms that do not offer the option to export your own data.

“Nuclear fusion is 30 years away; and always will be." I wonder how this phrase manages to hold after 50 years since its inception.

We could compare it to the state of general AI, but at least in the machine learning field, progress is being made without knowing the feasibility or path to reaching general in AI. In fusion it appears that the theory has already been set and maintaining the chain reaction going for long enough is the limitation (progress being made here), would it be the same case that the final steps are still missing without a clear path, or would the current progress be enough to eventually reach it?

I have a hunch than in a couple decades this issue will be amplified. The biggest problem we are seeing from the disposal of more social interactions arises from not giving it its true importance.

It may be as you say that in the past interactions were fostered mainly as a side product of the necessity to cooperate and interact with others. However as we develop and become for independent thanks to prosperity and technology we must not get rid of interaction for they are an end in itself.

The issue or even taboo is the lack of importance that is given to the interactions with others just for its own sake. Maybe we will move on from this need and become more self reliant, however in the short term it seems that we are having a hard time adapting, especially with the increase of suicides and drug use in younger generations. -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21650584

From what I've seen living a privileged community in a not so privileged country, its that culture tends to impact in a much higher degree than money or privilege. Yes, money can buy you the privilege of skipping those awkward interactions that make us human, but it is up to the person to actually want to use money with that purpose.

I know very wealthy people that keep very closed ties to their families and friends. It's true that finding real friends gets harder, but the isolation tends to be caused by a deeper cultural norm.

E.g. in Latin America the family is given a much higher importance than in the States or Europe. It is not rare to see young adults living with their parents even if they can easily afford a place of their own. Even those that live on their own tend to meet their families in a regular basis.

In the end it's all about prioritizing what is important in your life and in every society there seems to be a common list shared by it's inhabitants, if you end up in a place that values more independence than relations, maybe its time to start swimming against the current in that regard.

No, it was not properly referenced in the article. I had previously seen the study.

From the supplementary material:

> All participants delivered the shock to themselves in this first part of the study. Thus, in Part 2 of the study, when people had the opportunity to shock themselves again, everyone knew what the shock entailed and how painful it was.

They also asked the participants to rate the experience from the sock in a 1-10 scale (negative to positive) and removed all participants who didn't find the shock as a negative experience.

The grade the remaining participants gave to the shock experience was in the lowest part of the scale, which makes it even more insane:

> ratings of the shock, t(52) = 1.40, p = .167

The study mentioned is "Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75

>Next, participants received our standard instructions to entertain themselves with their thoughts (in this case for 15 min). If they wanted, they learned, they could receive an electric shock again during the thinking period by pressing a button. We went to some length to explain that the primary goal was to entertain themselves with their thoughts and that the decision to receive a shock was entirely up to them. Many participants elected to receive negative stimulation over no stimulation—especially men: 67% of men (12 of 18) gave themselves at least one shock during the thinking period [range = 0 to 4 shocks, mean (M) = 1.47, SD = 1.46, not including one outlier who administered 190 shocks to himself], compared to 25% of women (6 of 24; range = 0 to 9 shocks, M = 1.00, SD = 2.32).

You can read the complete study here, https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/WILSON%20ET%20AL%202014.pdf

I´m quite intrigued about the outlier who managed to shock himself every 4.7 seconds for 15 minutes straight. Was he trying to go for a record or just plain masochism...

> "Ensuring the safety of associates in our building is our number one priority and we invest heavily in safety,"

Having pain medications on vending machines for their employees seems to me like scheduling to fix a leak after it rains.

The innovators dilemma talks about a similar situation with storage. Every x years a new, smaller format would arrive and everybody would brush it aside until after some time the benefits would be noticeable and everybody would scramble to jump into the new format.

This process would go on to repeat itself, not always the innovators of introducing a new format would be able to replicate this shift, mainly because they would be victims of their own success and had to keep up with expected revenue and margins.

Capitalism has its perks, great advancements have been made in technology, quality of life and the development of cities that would otherwise have never existed.

The real issue lies when you look at the system in a more holistic, long term view, lets say another 200 years. In that time-frame the self propelling cycle of capital will make the accumulation of all wealth lie in a very small group.

In itself it is not a bad thing as long as advancements are still being made and the average quality of life is improved, however it leaves the system with a very centralized point of control.

This point of control could quickly deviate the system for purposes not entirely in the best interest of the species, put it as "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It may be a possibility but not the great peril. The real issue lies in the central group having accumulated all resources, and then not being able to maintain said resources and leaving the whole system open to a single point of failure by a revolt of some sorts. (starting from scratch can take more energy that the energy required to topple the system, and sometimes there may not enough energy to build over...)

Do we really want to have a society were the integrity of it depends on a single point? Maybe we do, but it just might not end up being the most resilient system.

I recently came up with an article that promoted an "innovative" park, buzzwords aside, it seems like a great project that is ongoing in Istambul, Turkey.

The Parkorman park looks amazing: https://www.archdaily.com/868082/drors-parkorman-park-in-ist...

Not even a remote control to handle basic settings, or were the settings locked until connected to a network?

I understand the terrible breach in privacy that comes with smart appliances (Looking at you Alexa), it could be argued that through a standard we could make this appliances "safer" or more secure to breaches.

The reality is that as long as there is any profit to be made from selling them, corners will be cut and people by trying to save will end up with smart appliances that end up being windows to unknown actors.

In this scenario I find it way more comforting for big corporations and governments to have access over individuals who could target specific people. Abstinence seems like the only solution from an individuals POV.

Running a brewery ends up being more about running a business than actually brewing...

Every corp ends up being much more intensive in the administrative side once the process or product has been standardized or reached a stable version. Isn't this the case for most businesses, including tech?

You know you are in a huge production bubble when all major cannabis producers use as their main metric their production capacity. Aurora cannabis even went as far as to lower their Average net selling price of wholesale bulk cannabis by 4% in the last quarter, due to not finding the demand to keep up with the production boom of the industry.

Reminds me of the scene in the "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" where oil was booming and production was hardly centralized which led to big fluctuations in the price and an overestimation of the demand, and therefore of the necessary supply.

It is not what you say but how you say it. People are emotional and tend to remember based on how something make them feel, not the phrasing of the conversation.

You could hypothesize a scenario where the poorest and even offending wording is used and as long as the person talking shows empathy, mimics and finds common ground through it's body language and most importantly, regulates its tone to avoid sounding judgmental. The receiver will find it easier to digest and accept the message in contrast to hearing the perfect phrased message.