twosdai

Really cool!

Why does adding a name require a PR? Could it be handled with a database instead?

There's probably some upper limit to it, i am not sure a horse could live through the ultra marathon moab race in the western us.

This is an exceptionally good point. Truly. Thanks for sharing.

Good callout on the underlying assumption. I agree.

And I additonally agree that people will gravitate toward comfort over the right choice.

It is possible to move most of that discussion to required but intentional async communication.

Really great point. I have wondered that as well.

Even weirder to me is that in the case of a person doing the computation on a board or paper or whatever medium, its still computation. This time the physical medium doing the work, is the human and their brain.

If consciousness can be proven to emerge from computation alone, then in a way we humans with our brains can simulate a new consciousness.

I think if you make the sharing intentional to specific groups or specific people with high quality work, people will be interested.

So you can biforcate your sharing somewhat. 99% of your content of sharing will not be watched initially, but if you trim it and edit it intentionally well for an audience who care, people will come to see more of what you have.

Many "influencers" share a lot on twitch and then cut up the best part of their stream into a 2 minute video byte for youtube. As an example.

> Oversight Log // PAX-7: We can confirm the crying. Our historical data includes 4.7 billion Slack messages containing the phrase “I can’t do this anymore” followed by a return to the desk within 9 minutes

This was amazing. Thanks for this, got a good laugh.

Found this really well written. I really enjoyed reading it, and found myself agreeing with a lot of it.

I wish the author wrote more about the day 2 problem cases with AI built applications. It somewhat matters what the programming language is, the architecture and design for debugging and reasoning verification when we want to alter the system specification.

Basically as a Dev, or "Owner" of the application, we are responsible for the continuous changes and updates to the system. Which I've found hard to reason about in practice when speaking to other people, if I dont know the code explicitly.

I also have this feeling. But do you ever doubt it. that when the time comes we will be like the boiled frog? Where its "just so convenient" or that the reality of setting up a local ai is just a worse experience for a large upfront cost?

Go and live in the woods. You dont need money. Die without a hospital its not required. You just want saftey.

Yeah, I think if there is some sort of super intelligence, the idea would be that it would make the system of computers and computation irrelevant entirely. Now that would be novel.

In this regard, the company cannot be created where there is not a single person tied to it, at least legally, even shell corporations have a person on the record as being responsible. So there needs to be some human that is apart of it, and in any "normal" organization if there is a person tied to the outcome of the company they presumably care about it and if the AI 99.99% of the time does good work, but still can make mistakes, a person will still be checking off on all its work. Which leads to a system of people reviewing and signing off on work, not exactly a fully autonomous firm.

Also for what its worth, I enjoyed reading your article, it was engaging. Keep it up!

I too crave my car when I am running around a track on the 5th lap.

In your comparison, I think you're getting tired because you need to reason through syntax writing which you have not done in a while, its more akin to going to gym than it is to "withdrawl". Having to reason through syntax for writing is going to be a muscle memory thing which AI will reduce, but its not really the most valuable skill of programming. Reading, comprehension, ownership, and your internal mental model of programming tasks are without a doubt the most important aspect of our work.

I really enjoyed this article, I didn't bridge the idea of an ATM and mobile banking.

I think the idea raised about "Automated Firms" is a bit off in the picture painted in that linked article. I think the David Oks intention is to paint a picture of a fully automated company, but the linked article gives this impression:

> Future AI firms won’t be constrained by what's scarce or abundant in human skill distributions – they can optimize for whatever abilities are most valuable. Want Jeff Dean-level engineering talent? Cool: once you’ve got one, the marginal copy costs pennies. Need a thousand world-class researchers? Just spin them up. The limiting factor isn't finding or training rare talent – it's just compute.

In that above paragraph the author is saying to the reader that a human will be able to spin up and get these armies of intelligent workers, but at the end of the day their output is given to a human who presumably needs to take ownership of the result. Intelligent workers make bad choices or bad bets, but those AI machines cannot "own" an outcome. The responsibility must fall on a person.

To this end, I think the fully autonomous firm is kind of a fallacy. There needs to be someone who can be sued if anything goes wrong. You're not suing the AI.

They (any government agency) literally scan your physical ID whenever they need it. How is this materially different to a digital ID being accessed.

I would add these motions only really make sense in a few cases:

1. its apart of an enterprise sales motion, eg you want to get ~1000$ per user per month out of it. 2. Its apart of some well subscribed newsletter, this looks more like an ad than a cold email.

If your business is trying an outbound sales motion, then these methods might work. If you're going down a Product lead growth motion because of the nature of the problem/product/customer, then I would try getting some influencers who your prospective users like to use your product.

I know a lot less about PLG motions, so take that with a grain of salt. Feel free to email me directly if you want feedback or anything. Email is in my profile.

Get someone you know to try it, and then see why they would or wouldn't tell their friends about your product. Interview the users you already have and ask what they like and dont like about the product.

For getting new users, traditional outbound motions like cold email, and cold calling work. But only if you know the problem youre trying to solve really well.

I think the sentiment here is about management's tie of bonuses to near-term stock performance. Maybe not about the market itself, I agree with your view on investors want long term gains over short term fluctuations mostly.

Like the emdash, whenever I read: "this isn't x it's y" my dumb monkey brain goes "THATS AI" regardless if it's true or not.

P

We I 787 I 879-0215 I I I ui 87⁸⁸78⁸877777777 I 77 I⁸7 I 87888887788 I 7788 I I 8 I 8 I 788 I 7⁷88 I 8⁸I 7788 I 787888877788888787 7pm I 87 I⁸77 I ui 77887 I 87787 I 7777888787788787887787877777⁷777⁷879-0215 7777 I 7pm⁷I⁷879-0215 777⁷IIRC 7 7pm 87787777877 I I I⁷⁷7 ui ui 7⁷879-0215 I IIRC 77 ui 777 I 77777 I7777 ui I 7877777778 I7 I 77887 I 87⁷8777⁸8⁷⁷⁸⁸7⁸⁸⁸87⁸⁸⁸⁸8⁷87⁸⁸87888⁷878⁷878887⁸⁸⁸88⁸878888888888888888888887878778788888888787788888888888888888888888888887 ui is 888888888887 7

Wow nice work. Thanks for doing this and writing it up.

One of the things I find interesting as well, is that among many of my friends outside the western world, they typically see: "knowing how something is made" as a western cultural thing. Many of them adopt a "why do you care how it's made, you are a not a manufacturer" type of response. Which i find very interesting.

They still care about the quality of the product, just not the process as much. Not sure if this the case for all people or a generalization. Just something I noticed.

It, the difference between calling child pornographic content cp vs CSAM, is splitting hairs. Call it CSAM its the modern term. Don't try to create a divide on terminology due to an edge case on some legal code interpretations. It doesn't really help in my opinion and is not a worthwhile argument. I understand where you are coming from on a technicality. But the current definition does "fit" well enough. So why make it an issue. As an example consider the following theoretical case:

a lawyer and judge are discussing a case and using the terminology CSAM in the case and needs to argue between the legality or issue between the child being real or not. What help is it in this situation to use CP vs CSAM in that moment. I dont really think it changes things at all. In both cases the lawyer and judge would need to still clarify for everyone that "presumably" the person is not real. So an acronym change on this point to me is still not a great take. Its regressive, not progressive.

Didn't actually check out the app, but some aspects of application state are hard to serialize, some operations are not reversible by the application. EG: sending an email. It doesn't seem naively trivial to accomplish this, for all apps.

So maybe on some apps, but "all" is a difficult thing.

> no children were sexually assaulted

Generating pictures of a real child naked is assault. Imagine finding child photos of yourself online naked being passed around. Its extremely unpleasant and its assault.

If you're arguing that generating a "fake child" is somehow significantly different and that you want to split hairs over the CSAM/CP term in that specific case. Its not a great take to be honest, people understand CSAM, actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant.

> but it definitely has some bias.

to be frank though, I think this a better way than all people's thoughts all of the time.

I think the "crowd" of information makes the end output of an LLM worse rather than better. Specifically in our inability to know really what kind of Bias we're dealing with.

Currently to me it feels really muddy knowing how information is biased, beyond just the hallucination and factual incosistencies.

But as far as I can tell, "correctness of the content aside", sometimes frontier LLMs respond like freshman college students, other times they respond with the rigor of a mathematics PHD canidate, and sometimes like a marketing hit piece.

This dataset has a consistency which I think is actually a really useful feature. I agree that having many perspectives in the dataset is good, but as an end user being able to rely on some level of consistency with an AI model is something I really think is missing.

Maybe more succinctly I want frontier LLM's to have a known and specific response style and bias which I can rely on, because there already is a lot of noise.

As an outsider of Big co's. I always felt that if youre not on one of the 10-20 awesome product teams. Eg, Google maps, aws lambda, windows core os. Something along those lines. It seems like a territory for justification Olympics.

Just my view as a dev who's largest co was like 500 people. ~100 engineers.

If youre able to do some networking and tell people verbatim what you just wrote. I think that will help a lot more than grinding kernel logic or whatever.

If youre not considering it, I would reccomend trying to find a local hacker club like defcon or 2600. There are usually a few embedded folks who go or are affiliated with those.