munchler

As a fan of the Curry-Howard correspondence, I approve of this decision.

> The strongest argument I see for continuing to train much smarter models quickly is the need to build defensive systems against the dangers posed by other AI.

Yikes! I really wonder about the cognitive dissonance necessary to work at OpenAI these days. They’re in an arms race to build a machine god, knowing full well that it could end humanity.

It seems like AI to me as well. “That’s the gap” is a familiar Claude-ism, as are the references to a “pivot” and the use of “touch” to mean “affect”.

To be fair, I’ve reached the point where most random blog posts I read on the internet seem AI written, so it could just be confirmation bias on my part.

It’s a minimal Windows app, so the whole idea is to rely on Windows DLLs as much as possible.

Well, yes, but negative numbers are also well known to every high school math student.

A human child would just say “I don’t know”.

Why is subtraction not part of the algebra? It’s certainly familiar to every high school math student. This omission allows the counterexample, so the reveal is a bit of a disappointment IMHO.

What a beautiful illustration. It makes intuitive the very abstract concepts discussed in the text. It’s fun to zoom in and browse around the structure.

Thank you. The OP's article is clearly AI-written.

It's not about immature people being unable to separate art from artist because it's difficult. The issue is whether it's the right thing to do.

I feel pretty confident that I could describe to you a case (either real or hypothetical) where you would reject an artist based on their personal behavior, rather than their art. You would find it quite difficult in such a case to separate the two.

So the question is where to draw the line, and everyone answers that question differently.

The flip side is that we currently put programs into production without understanding how they will behave in those edge cases. If you're lucky, they crash and then restart cleanly. If you're unlucky, they silently corrupt data or violate mission-critical invariants.

Thank you for this. I probably don't have higher standards, but I do have way fewer than a million users!

Thank you for this explanation. It makes sense, but I don't really understand why it has become so popular.

Professionally, my experience is that certain software components need to run together on an individual machine (e.g. database server, app server, web server), and then those machines need to be networked in a certain way (e.g. web server talks to app server, which talks to database server), so I really need to care about the architecture of individual machines. You can then scale this out horizontally (e.g. add another web server) or vertically (e.g. upgrade your database server).

I'm old, so maybe I'm out of date, but having a cluster of "compute" that I can run arbitrary workloads on sounds neat, but is a capability that I've never needed.

I appreciate the effort and I'm in your target audience, but that document didn't help me. It seems to dive into the details of installing and running k8s without saying much about the purpose.

From my very ignorant standpoint, K8s seems to be about running a "cluster", but I don't know why I would want to do that.

Nobody knows what anything is going to be worth in 5 years.

(1989)

> "This action is irreversible and ensures that your data remains protected."

This amounts to "We deleted all your data in order to keep it safe." WTF.

> Code is code. It either does the job or doesn't.

Surely that is not the only dimension that matters when evaluating software. Maintainability and readability, for example, are crucial for any long-lived project.

I love the chatty tone of this utterly dystopian question.

If AGI is the goal and something like the Singularity is even a remote possibility, the difference between first and second place could be effectively infinite. Given China’s suppression of human rights, it’s not a chance I would want my government to take.

> I can think of exactly one customer in two years who was surprised that software costs money

I think you meant "I can think of exactly one customer in two years who was NOT surprised that software costs money"?

To expand on this a bit, I appreciate some audio overkill because, if I do hear sizzle or distortion, it eliminates one possible reason and helps me figure out what’s actually happening.

It’s like having gigabit internet to my house: I don’t actually need it, but when a website is slow, I know the problem isn’t in my internet connection.

It actually extends to all automation, even before computers. Replacing oxen with tractors? Now you have to keep the tractors running.

This would create more chaos than any other suggestion so far. Well done.

> Once AI takes everything it can take, what is left for us?

This is a good question, but is perhaps too abstract to address well. I think a better question for right now is:

Once AI generates all the wealth it can generate, who benefits from that wealth?

If the answer is a small number of humans, that is probably a dystopia worth resisting.

If the answer is some number of AI agents, but no humans at all, that is probably also a dystopia worth resisting.

I think the only good outcome is one in which humanity benefits on the whole. If that means that we have to become a post-capitalist society in order to share in the wealth, so be it.

As a kid, I liked arithmetic function machines that "magically" force a particular output or allow one to quickly deduce the input from the output. These are usually based on non-obvious (to a kid) identities. I would invent my own and then ask family members to play along. I'm not sure if this sort of puzzle game has a name?

A simple example:

- Multiply your number by 2

- Add 10

- Divide by 2

- Subtract the original number

The classic I remember from childhood is the card game "War". Assuming neither player cheats or makes a mistake, the outcome is totally predetermined.

If, say, a certain version of Claude tends to be better at front-end than back-end work, that can be important for deciding how to use it in the future. Just like when managing human developers.

> Disclose your "AI" tools in a merge request if needed but leave them out of the damn commits, those are for technical information and not for advertising.

I think this is very poor advice. Knowing who/what changed the code is often crucial for understanding why it changed.