firecracker is a lot more of a headache to setup than docker sbx (not container!) but if you can get it going it probably “feels” the best

of a different variety some people feel better using stuff like bubblewrap/fire jail but idk if these are still microvm as opposed to the above

but it’s my opinion (perhaps completely criticizable), that sandboxing for personal home use machines is 1) somewhat overkill 2) somewhat theatre 3) psychologically sometimes exhausting and unrealistic always assuming the worst is going to happen and 4) not really worth the time and creates quite a bit of friction that there wasn’t previously. In the end I spent more time tinkering with the sandbox to get it “just” right that it drained my time actually using the agents so …

clear would be something like

piss-cheap - it’s-alright-i guess - okay-relax - ouch-my-wallet

looking from the tail end of the generation, many of my friends ( and also I ) were led to believe somehow that things like marijuana, psychedelics, non-Alcohol have such low consequences that are entirely a rounding error compared to alcohol. which is ...

I feel like I'm losing it

There are a good deal of people, whom, falter much more in oral discussions, whether this be for a psychological thing, stage fright, or difficulty explaining things on the spot. There are also certainly brilliant people, who can’t give an informative, discussion inviting talk to save their lives, but given enough time, can formalize their thoughts in writing at the highest levels of their field, and that writing is likewise very enlightening (sometimes).

It’s not clear to me, that, AI as is, could not pose successfully in an oral discussion of a topic. I mention this because it seems that one implication of the article is that AI might write things that are logically correct, but devoid of understanding. I suggest rather that 1) it is not extremely improbably that AI is incapable of generating mathematics that furthers human understanding and if 2) it is indeed highly likely that they cannot generate mathematics that furthers human understanding in a textual format, then surely one could also differentiate between human and AI on a textual level, and judge the contribution of a human, without the need of oral discussion?

I suppose another aside is, one might claim that the existence of AI means people have much much more text to filter for, and so, it becomes difficult to find one person’s good writing amidst a sea of, logically correct, yet understanding devoid textual content. But by and large much or mathematical academia certainly operates off of some reputation/vouching system presently anyways, that already serves as a “filter” in some sense. Perhaps the existence of such a system/culture is not a good thing, but oral discussions/seminars certainly aren’t immune from such predilections.

Perhaps I’m babbling like an idiot, but the entire and sole purpose of this comment is just to say: for the love of god please don’t let the standard be judged by oral presentation

But the phrase "don't do random shit", semantically, from a monkey's paw perspective, could imply curtailing the model's creativity and 'thinking out of the box' capacity, that might have existed in its 'reasoning' process. So I'm always concerned if it's possible that, adding these phrases might be part of the reason why a model performs dumber than it should.

I don't have empirical evidence to support that supposition though.

Have had a similar experience, fixed by curing depression and taking vyvanse for adhd, then learning to manage being on vyvanse

really feels like discussion spawns only off post title and as a second or third order effect, post content