svnt

I think that is the case if the majority has or exercises little to no effective social power to enforce the norm.

The majority consensus is to desire a peaceful environment but do nothing when it is violated.

I think they also have a blue 2007 Prius model.

It is a chicken and egg problem. As long as the majority of people who would maintain the social environment are avoiding the social environment, the healthy consensus/operating regime can never emerge.

Well “I badgered claude code for a month and got something that seems to work but I don’t remember how or why” doesn’t make for very compelling reading.

We are seeing the rift between actual hacking and vibe-building opening in real time. People always wanted to do this and get the attention. Now they can do it but it isn’t worth the attention.

Not if it is your wealthy sponsor who insists on the competition and prize while funding your work.

But reproducibility should be the point. As a result of the structure it approaches an asymptote from one side or the other. I took it once and approached from green and my greenness was 77%, a second time it approached from blue and my blueness was 68%.

A test that allows an answer of neither would deliver more information (transition points and an error bar) without failing to identify a distribution in the population taking the test.

No? That could just be fomo, actual adoption, or a number of other things.

>> Why do you assume my experience is so different? There are tons of people on forums like these who've dealt with extreme shyness and severe problems, yet managed to persevere.

> I am assuming this because you are projecting all over me

Projecting means you are making assumptions rooted in your own experience about what I think and how I feel which are not accurate.

>> Your struggles might not be nearly as unique as you think.

> and not distinguishing between me and the people I was making the point about. I was pretty clear in my comment that I do not struggle with shyness.

This means you are conflating me with the people I work with who struggle with this — ie you did not take the time to understand my comment chain before replying.

> Some people experience debilitating levels of shyness, and some people have done the work necessary to understand the perspective of those people, but in my experience they do not communicate like you do.

This means you appear to be functionally illiterate in the language of subjective experience and are just insisting that other people experience the world the way you do. This is understandable as a default because for many it is a familiar, easier, model of reality to work with. People exist who have the same fluency in this area that you have in your primary area of expertise. Think about the gap in understanding between someone who knows nothing about your area of expertise and you. Think about how they sound trying to explain to you how to solve a problem in your work.

It may be well-meaning, but it is clearly not thoughtful.

How does it follow that companies that are months apart will trip the singularity and this will prevent the others from doing so?

Who supplies the hardware for the singularity?

What is the argument for a duopoly when Kimi and Deepseek models are only months behind?

It’s a commodity in the making.

This depends on a fantasy cascade of functional consequences of AGI, whatever that acronym even means anymore.

It is just cargo cult financing at this point.

$40B is not anywhere near half of Anthropic at this point. You do get the same access as nvidia, aws, and other investors, which has value.

I am assuming this because you are projecting all over me and not distinguishing between me and the people I was making the point about. I was pretty clear in my comment that I do not struggle with shyness. Some people experience debilitating levels of shyness, and some people have done the work necessary to understand the perspective of those people, but in my experience they do not communicate like you do.

I see, so you are saying you commenting on the person who was struggling was only about your superiority all along?

Some of the people I work with have gone into therapy. The more intelligent and in touch with their emotions they already were, the less therapy did for them. For a lot of dudes it is a revelation. For a lot of others it is not, just a way to continue to surface intractable problems in conversation.

Therapy doesn’t always help, many people need more compassion from those around them. And society would be better equipped to provide that if instead to referring their contacts to specialists they might not be able to afford, more well-off people developed some minor therapeutic ability and concern for their fellow humans.

It is far more helpful to others for you to share the depths of your experience than to go around telling people they need to go to therapy because it works for you.

I see the enthusiasm and that you want better things for others, but the way you are approaching this communication is not doing it justice.

Respect for developmental diversity does more to isolate people?

Because it seems like you and several other people are projecting a lot of “trauma is my identity” ideas on me that aren’t in what I wrote.

What I wrote is that telling people “get good, I did” is really unhelpful. Put more work and thought into how you try to connect with people whose experience is very different from yours.

Yeah I don’t disagree, but your approach comes off as uncaring and arrogant.

Panic -> response distribution shrinks -> freeze/be angry/make social mistake, but hey it’s fast

You: wouldn’t it be more adaptive if you didn’t do this?

Millions of years of mammalian evolution, unevenly distributed in homo sapiens: No

Your response assumes a lot about the homogeneity of subjective human experience that the data don’t seem to support.

There is a diversity of physical attractiveness, innate and learned social grace, social environment, and phenotypic variability in psychosocial capacity that makes your comment sound extremely out of touch to some people.

I can do what you describe because I am fortunate that many of my social interactions are positive. For people I work with this is not the case and they are extremely socially isolated, and the tragedy is that every mistake they make compounds this. They are more sensitive interpersonally than I am and more socially aware in the moment, while less equipped to deal with social conventions and unattractive, becoming dramatically moreso in social situations due to their intrinsic reactions.

The points in the article can help all of us.

I use it claude and gemini all the time and they get more advanced theory, motivation, and history wrong all the time.

If you aren’t seeing the errors it is because you are in some really mainstream conversations or because you don’t know what they are saying that is wrong.

This is trivial to demonstrate to yourself for any nontrivial project. A single academic question is easy to get the right answer for. That is not the dominant AI use case for most product people or engineers.

Good luck all-in.

But seriously what are you doing that this works? I guess if you are writing pop culture articles this might work.

For anything where the output has consequences I can’t imagine finding success like this.

This seems almost completely untrue?

The new models have engines that are smaller turbos, that part is true — but they get >30% better fuel economy, and they output more power.

The reliability might become an issue down the road especially in hybrid engines but the data so far don’t seem to support your assertions. The one exception is maybe the Tundra 3.4L but that seems to still be ambiguous as to the root cause, and may just be mfg process error.

His point is that in x86 there is no performance difference but everyone except his colleague/friend uses xor, while sub actually leaves cleaner flags behind. So he suspects its some kind of social convention selected at random and then propagated via spurious arguments in support (or that it “looks cooler” as a bit of a term of art).

It could also be as a result of most people working in assembly being aware of the properties of logic gates, so they carry the understanding that under the hood it might somehow be better.

Getting deep into apologetics here.

No disagreement on micro USB, it was a terrible standard.

Thanks I am the source. em-dashing since 1997

I don’t have feelings about the AI industry to put aside. I would not have sufficient information to assess whether thingamajigs are legitimately valuable or whether they are tulips. The only indicator I see is the last point about people using it in the short term despite having access to cost effective alternatives, which actually points to irrationality/FOMO more than legitimate value.

What we are looking at looks to me like it is rapidly becoming a a commodity: it will become as existential as electricity and water to businesses, and it will be sold and marketed and regulated, more or less like a utility.

Yes I understand why the agreement exists, but that does not remove the circularity.

They are different observations, I think, though the phrasing confuses it:

a) cost per successful task is rising — eg claude max allocation is functionally shrinking

b) is there enough potential cost reduction in the queue to make up the gap

c) if open models converge on a more efficient but slightly-less capable point (which has effectively happened) what is the actual moat?