darkerside

Feynman describes molecular interactions beautifully, and has a textbook where he explains that even the boundary between water and air operates on a model like diffusion. Hydrogen and oxygen are constantly snapping and breaking back and forth. It's all just invisible to the human eye. I imagine this is similar.

The difference is that most chatbots are not actually highly successful search engines that are also being a chatbot and pretending it's the same thing

Coherence is a given... What we lose over decades is alignment.

What do you think dreaming is, silly?

Did you migrate any old email?

Five did, but nine did too

There's certainly a grain of truth, but there's also a lot of idealism and naivete.

First, there's the false dichotomy. Only psychopaths do things purely and only for the incentives. Others modify their behavior in incentive optimizing ways, but within the constraints of what they think are right and wrong.

The author brings the confidence of the newly religious. They have found some great truth, seem the great fish, and now anyone else who has not reached this acceptable level of fervor is, in their words, a loser. Perhaps the fish the author has seen is also not that great? Compared to the vastness of the ocean? And they just haven't seen one of the many even bigger fish yet? And then may someday realize that all fish look different to all people and some people have found their fish and it's different from your fish, it may even look not that great to you, but what matters is how it looks to the beholder.

What is the author even arguing for? Because it comes off as "care more".

Hope they checked their text messages

The median IQ of successive generations may absolutely be falling

You realize it wasn't always that way, right? And that whole we continue to optimize this complex supply chain, there are diminishing returns. If you roll back recent computing technology, many people die, but if you roll back the industrial revolution, modern civilization collapses.

Clearly written by someone who's never lived without steam power (semi tongue in cheek).

But seriously, your ability to expediently research just doesn't compare to the ability to ship a metric ton of freight across the country without marshalling an army of people for months on end. As one example.

> thought-terminating cliché

It was not intended as such, which I think you agree with. My aim was to turn it on its head here and strengthen all of our understandings of both AI and CGI through their common characteristics.

Did you read the article? The man was sick

This question is a trap. Like programming languages. There's the products everybody hates and the ones nobody uses.

Reminds me of CGI in movies. People who hate CGI really only hate bad CGI.

Perhaps more importantly than any of those, often people react out of fear of what they think other people will think.

Maybe everyone bitches about gas prices, but we would all get over it pretty fast if politicians just pulled the band-aid off. Instead they use it as an opportunity to pull down any crab that tries to save us from the bucket.

No, it's a specific direction to look information up in docs or online rather than relying on model training.

If zebras cause blindness, perhaps you should consider zebras?

That song was made popular by Sublime. Not written and never performed by Bob Marley. Great track though!

In fairness, you could throw the most senior engineer into a brand new codebase, and they would probably make a dozen mistakes if you immediately had them pick up invasive and risky work.

I'm sure the finance market is much larger as well

The problem then is that if you're not using Fable/Mythos, you are under threat. It's like having a single gun manufacturer.

On this track, we're probably destined for a monopoly breakup before too long.

Not even. Tell the model to write a test of your code. There's your vulnerability.

It's explained better in the original source. I don't agree with it, but I understand it now, but I also think we need to move past it.

And it was the dumbest and least valuable stock traders that exited the industry. The industry is alive and well today.

Teaching is a lot like (a certain style of) management. You learn what motivates someone, make the connection between that and the subject matter at hand, and make it accessible for them to get to the next level. The rest takes care of itself.

> active silicon

This is not necessarily a functioning chip.

The whole thing runs on survivorship bias. And if you don't agree, just wait and see.

History bears out that cheap and satisficing soundly beats expensive and optimal every time. Until we have smarter and more prescient decision makers in leadership, the bottleneck on output will be the quality of decision making not the quality of code. Trying more things faster and cheaper will win.

If it were really groundbreaking, I imagine it wouldn't have burned out after a little missed hype. See No Man's Sky.

The other way to look at this is, thank goodness we didn't waste months or years on a failed game concept. Instead we got to market and validated (or invalidated) the concept fast.

Marketing, networking, and sales are the job. Or a large part of it. If you don't have connections, knowing how to make connections is part of it.

Accept that there are other skills besides engineering, and they can be just as challenging to learn, and just as opaque from the outside of you don't understand it.