drpyser22

What do you think about something like Nix/NixOS?

Obviously currently the AI models are limited in power. We are a few breakthrough short of low-power AI systems that can compete with the brain in all aspects.

Isn't it open source?

Is there a way to reliably measure sentience meaningfully?

They would obviously be wrong, because there's nothing truly general about those AI systems.

The goalposts move because we are naive about what is required for true general intelligence. Complex problems that seem to require complex intelligence sometimes turn out to be solvable through simpler systems. And sometimes we underestimate the complexity of a task and the intelligence required (such as autonomous driving).

Developers should have some grasp of ops work, and be able to deal with some ops-related issues, and take part of the design of the ops-side of the software delivery, so as to make sure the infra and deployment workflow they deal with works for them.

But yes it makes sense to me to still have people specialized in ops and infra in teams, collaborating with developers.

Basically, instead of having developers doing everything or just developing and throwing code out to an ops team, we should have developers educated in operations, working in teams with at least one operation specialist (or "DevOps engineer"). That way, you should end up with infra, deployment workflow that really works for the team and is optimized for the needs of the team.

That's a bit disingenuous to actual engineers trying to solve problems and genuinely believing their solution can make things better.

Also, looking at principles over tooling, DevOps has a lot to offer that trivially make sense.

Not in a literal physical sense. The word is used in a more general sense of "propensity", "tendency".

Consider, while all in the universe tends towards higher entropy - more chaos, less structure, less energy differential - life and other forms of structure (planets, planetary systems, star systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters) exist and persist.

Parts of nature conspire to create and maintain structures and organization, fighting against entropy.

Its a good thing that these paradigm exist so you know their value, and eventually understand when they're appropriate. You're right that there may not be a one-size-fits-all.

For validation, this approach would have you write a set of functions to validate the properties of the data.

Nothing forbids a function that applies validation to inputs before returning a data object? Extensibility can be done through functional means(e.g. higher order functions, function composition, lens) or oop(strategy pattern and equivalents, code object composition and inheritance,...). Not sure what you mean by more compact and code-oriented?

Code is always coupled to an interface, implicitly or explicitly. In the case of oop, code is coupled to the class, which can represent something specific with very concrete semantics (e.g. employee, author) or something generic that is meant to be subclassed(e.g. person).

Its not rdbms though. It's RDF, triple store, graph-like data models.

What's interesting is, if it goes to court, Google will want to counter the claim of sentience, first by arguing about proper definition of sentience, and showing that Lambda doesn't mean any proper definition. And that's likely to be easy to demonstrate through a thorough interrogation by experts trying to "outsmart" the algorithm.

Or Lambda is indeed sentient, in which case any attempt to demonstrate its non-sentience will fail...

Well, performance is rarely the most important thing nowadays. What's preached against is not performance, but a performance-first attitude.

I agree it would be nice to value performance a bit more, but not at all costs, and depending on the use case and context of the application not necessarily as the priority over security, maintainability, velocity, reliability, etc.

I guess the word "anthropomorphise" here is conflating many understanding of "human" and humanity. In the same way, is a bunch of cells, an embryon or just a tissue sample, a human? Is an organ a human? Is a developing fetus a human? How many properties do each share with a typical example of a human? There's a spectrum of biological complexity and other attributes we associate with the idea of "human". The question then is where does a baby fit on that spectrum.

The general idea of anthropomorphising, here, is to attribute characteristics and experience that we only know from our own experience as conscious, self-aware creatures capable of complex cognition and complex communication of that experience.

Ai is not a single entity. Clearly that Chabot is not driving Google's autonomous cars, and probably doesn't have the capabilities to. Maybe appearing sentient is easier than dealing with driving in the ways we want those system to.

Why is it not a good idea to use pressured air jets attached to each panel? Is the energy required for quick pressured air burst significant?

Monitoring != Alerting on critical failures. It's worthwhile to have a real-time data feed for useful metrics(e.g. avg load, latency, requests, etc) not just to alert on critical failures, but to understand the overall behavior of your system, and to predict potential failures based on the cumulative trend over some window. Not sure how a single failure on a single test communicated via email can be similarly useful.

I guess its a matter of standard on what "minimal monitoring" entails.