uh_uh

But you can't just plug those into your already existing stack easily, unlike a purely API-based solution no?

I tried and it's difficult to create a good agent harness.

There are trade-offs here:

Give up too early -> users will get annoyed because the task would have been solvable if the model pushed harder.

Give up too late -> collateral damage while completing the task A.K.A. misalignment.

It just feels silly to haggle about the price here. It doesn't even matter because it's going to drop by an OOM quickly.

If these 10 problems were solved by humans, it would be pretty impressive, even if it took a large number of researchers! Yet when AI does it, HN commenters suddenly feel the urge to play accountant.

It is comical at this point. Some people just can not stand the thought of AI actually delivering and are trying to find whatever ways to discredit it.

These dewormers treat the condition after the individual was already infected. I don't think they prevent the disease. Additionally, taking Albendazole without anti-inflammatory meds can be fatal in case of an active infection. Reason is that if the cysts start dying the brain, the toxins released might cause swelling which can lead to neurological damage or death.

AFAIK there is no prophylactic for pork tapeworms. I'd love to be proven wrong.

What kind of apps are you writing where GC spikes matter?

I wasn't trying to link the two. Just pointed out that there seems to be a lot of unknowns on the map.

> It's what having such senses feels like from the inside; the first-person view.

The hard problem is that there is such a feeling at all.

Isn't there a magical moment needed still when a single qubit "touches" the rest of the universe?

I'd say we are confused about both the lowest (quantum) and highest level (consciousness) phenomena of the known Universe. Quite humbling.

Would you be similarly pedantic if a high-schooler did the same?

OK, but don't you see where this is going? The trajectory that we're on?

How so?

> Because remember, Apple doesn't usually invent new products. It takes proven ones and then makes its own much nicer version.

Funny seeing this repeated again in response to Siri which is just... not very good.

The other day I heard ChatGBD.

There will always be a way out if you are dedicated enough. They "just" want to make it unviable for most of the population.

Couple years ago you could have made the same argument about talking computers and here we are.

If you own AGI, human workers are worse than zero. They become an active threat that can kill you.

I don't think this is true at all. There are multiple sources talking about how the mutation rate is context-dependent.

I think you are psychoanalyzing me a little bit too much. Am I allowed to say that I'm an atheist and I don't believe in intelligent design, or are you going to explain to me that I'm confused about my own beliefs?

I have little patience for intelligent-design and the likes, if that's what you are getting at.

All I'm saying is that blind enumeration of mutations seems combinatorially infeasible due to the vastness of the search space. It is already known that mutation bias exists, so what I'm saying shouldn't be that controversial.

> It's not just planet-scale, it's universe-scale. Lots of planets conduct the experiment, ours just happens to have resulted in intelligence.

My argument doesn't depend on the existence of an intelligent species on the planet. The problem already arises when there are multiple species on ONE planet. If you calculate the pure combinatorial distance between the DNA of 2 species, you must find that you can't just brute force your way from one to the other before the heat-death of the universe. This is why mutation bias exists: not all mutations are equally likely, evolution favours some kinds over others.

Let's take human DNA as an example. It contains 3.2B GTCA base pairs. This gives rise to 4^3.2B possible combos. It's just not possible to navigate this space blindly. There is not enough atoms in the universe to do that. It is known that there is bias in what mutations are favoured.

I find it hard to believe that evolution is completely blind. The search space that it can explore via mutations is astronomically large. Considering that the experiment is run at planet-scale over billions of years doesn't really save the argument as it takes some specimen years to develop and get feedback on their fitness. It's hard to believe that it's truly just random "bit-flips".

I'm not trying to suggest woo here, but there has to be some mechanisms to constrain the search space somewhat.

"Hidden" or "latent" in a context like this just means variables that the algo is trying to infer because it doesn't have direct access to them.

Exactly, these agentic coding tools which operate on your codebase present on your own disk are a lot more fungible than most SaaS.

You don't have to prove it to me that Trump is a lot more self-serving than Biden. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

That said, this shouldn't be a competition of who is "more self-serving". Just because your neighbour murdered two people, doesn't mean that you get to murder one.

I will help: people don't like it when the presidential pardon is used for self-serving shit.