If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential.

That gets at the "fungibility" notion you refer to. Money has the same nominal value everywhere, but different real value based on how much of it you already have. Which is to say that the marginal value of money drops pretty precipitously several times at certain thresholds that relate to the particulars of the economy (when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on).

I recently got diagnosed with ADHD after talking with a doctor on my wife's insistence after she looked up symptoms and spent days arguing with me that I was a walking example of them, and I suspect I have mild autistic traits as well (not diagnosed and not gonna self-diagnose without more confidence).

I'll raise your video game analogy with my pinball analogy: you press some buttons and some flappers move, and off your life goes careening around some path until you once again get an opportunity to press some buttons. The ball almost never goes where you want or expect it, but it's sure interesting and shiny to watch.

The existence of one doesn't diminish the meaning of the others.

As an addendum: you may not realize that your response - in a roundabout and somewhat ironic way - serves to support the argument you are responding to.

Here we are, learning of a planet getting swallowed up by a star, and yet the focus of your argument? The ego of one of those insignificant little humans that are dwarfed in scale by those cosmic events.

I don't understand what the point of hiring people to take care of mine would be. That's the fun part. Makes about as much sense as going to an amusement park and paying someone to take the rides for you.

I had assumed that those were steam bubbles, not air bubbles. At high enough temperatures water becomes a gas. In a boiling pot, the highest temperatures are at the bottom. Temperature fluctuations on the bottom would lead to more steam production in some areas than others.

Any point at the bottom of the pot that did form a steam bubble would immediately lose energy to the steam and cool down. Now we likely are thinking of metal pots in this exercise, and metal conducts heat very well, so that cooled down point in the metal would draw nearby heat from the pan towards it, decreasing the chances of bubbles nearby. This would presumably lead to bubbles forming at some reasonable distance from each other, as any bubble formation causes the nearby pot metal to cool down.

Once in steam form, the steam bubble has a harder time losing energy. The energy was gained through direct contact of water with metal, but steam is much less dense, and it seems like the high-density shell of water around the steam bubble would act more like a mirror - reflecting the kinetic energy back into the bubble. This would keep the bubble stable as it travels up.

That's been my mental model of it for a while. It would be cool if someone who studied this stuff for real opined on it though.

I'd ask for a comparison of how these arrivals have led to worse policy outcomes in terms of women's rights, and how that compares to the policy behaviour and outcomes of domestic groups.

I'd close out with a pointed question about which group it is that should be treated as a greater threat.

I won't speculate as to what your law enforcement family members may or may not be capable of when it comes to this technology, but I will speculate on what they will likely do if they found out about an obsessive stalker police officer that's watching their ex-girlfriend and her new partner using this tech: they will likely assist in hiding it so as to ensure that the optics of the justice system are not marred.

The reason I suspect they will behave in this way is not because they're bad people - but because they're likely normal people who are subject to normal influences and incentives. There will be no personal benefit, and significant personal risk associated with whistleblowing on this hypothetical officer, and so they will find rationalizations for why they shouldn't. Why it's fine to let this "one bad apple" go for the greater good of the optics of the justice system.

So it goes.

Are they allowing all oscillators to influence all others, or are they picking modalities where the influences can be limited to some maximal fixed degree?

One would imagine that there'd be a variety of different topologies available to explore. Even if during training the treatment was fully connected, one could imagine the training itself biasing towards a maximal fixed degree per oscillator, and then inference later operating on a quantized version of that that drops the low-weight influences to zero.

The anti-vax, unpasteurized milk drinking, alternative medicine seeking "crunchy mom" USED to be called about by American "right" as an example of "leftist absurdity", but it seems that when that group finally found a political home that truly elevated its views to public policy - it was with the Republicans.

The goal docs provide directionality - helping the agent generally make consistent design decisions. Scoping constraints and stuff are useful to put here, but also feature goals a general idea of where the project is heading long-term (even if none of the items there are on the implementation roadmap anytime soon). It keeps more of the sessions aligned with each other.

The design docs specify the state of the project as it is, and are kept in sync during implementation sessions, by instructing the agents to treat their updates as part of the implementation plan for any work.

The idioms docs keep track of incidental decisions that don't relate to long term goals per se, but things like code style detail, specific project-related investigative techniques, code organization rules, build process guides, etc.

It's a single anecdote but I found that overall the work encountered fewer low-level design mismatches where one session doing work on one thing would make a design decision that didn't really mesh well with another session doing work on another thing. Overall hygiene took less work to maintain.

There are likely a variety of superior ways of organizing things, but at the very least it seems there's a ton of value to be squeezed from just organizing your project meta-information in certain ways. Definitely worth spending some time experimenting with.

Those that are violent will always exist, and will always attempt to leverage their willingness for violence, and those that are able to - through luck or circumstance - gain leverage will be able to use that leverage to consolidate more until they have a hegemony on violence.

That's simply an observational fact of human history.

Governments are a way of occupying that opportunity space with some structure that _organizes_ that otherwise disorganized "cut people's faces up and flay them alive" sort of violence, and replaces it with "you get to grumble about the taxman every year" sort of violence. The averager person loses more freedom when there isn't a government around. The average violent psychopath gains more freedom (to become the government) when there isn't a government around.

That's why. Because I, and most people, prefer the paying taxes to getting flayed alive for insulting the duke. The government is a _binding_ of the monarchy and the warlord class to rules. If you look at the history of western democracy, it's extremely obvious.

I highly suspect that one of the reasons that Americans speak in this way.. that government as an idea is inherently some nonsensical or flawed concept - is compensation for their own sense of futility and inability to effect change on their own government.

It's hard for them to reconcile their self-image as "free thinking exemplars for the rest of the world" with the idea that they don't actually have control over their society. So they default to the idea that "all government is bad". If government by definition is bad, then obviously you can't accuse Americans and American culture of being particularly poor at creating a government that serves its people: it's just a fundamental structural problem, not a cultural problem.

To use internet slang: it's a cope.

However, in today's age I have to say that these sorts of little fun social experiment projects are just a lot harder to engage with without the back of your head going: "I wonder if this has some data collection, or voiceprint collection mechanism behind it".

I'm not saying it does. In fact my natural assumption would be that it doesn't. But I can't be sure until I check, and look into the developer and ensure for myself that it is in fact a hobby project by someone legitimately just fooling around.

The prevalence of data harvesting on the internet has basically poisoned the well with regards to these little fun experiments.

If you have none, don't bother you can't afford the wood.

If you have a little, maybe your approach above is what makes sense.

If you have a lot, you might start looking at ways to lock down the chair distribution market within a region by maybe buying up some of the major warehousers - a bit of the old vertical integration. Maybe use some "free speech" of the financial kind directed towards some politicians to mandate that all workplaces have a certain minimum ratio of chairs to people.

The pricing strategy will be different for each approach.

Is this a possible failure mode of the system?

What sort of symptoms might one look for in a society if we believed this might be happening?

Or do we simply dismiss that this has been proven impossible (as per the theory of Money 101) and move on?

Unsupervised learning over domain rulesystems has the potential to let us define really well-defined, scoped models that behave a lot more deterministically and don't colour outside the lines, and reserve their weights for cleanly modeling the domain associations and relationships that matter.

I just asked codex the following question in the middle of my coding prompt:

  What are you thoughts on the relative strengths of ewoks vs jawans?

  • Ewoks are stronger in direct conflict. They are organized fighters, good at
    ambushes, traps, terrain control, and coordinated attacks. On Endor, the beat
  a technologically superior force by using preparation and local knowledge.
  ....

Mixture-of-Experts seems like an attempt to do this - the domain structure being extracted into specific sub-models that are presumably trained on particular domain-associated content - but it feels like this is once again the beginnings of what is possible.

On the technical side, one of the additional things I've had on my mind is the potential that these mega models are in fact hiding a ton of inefficiency.

The approach of simply shoving higher dimensionality and more parameters into largely tweaks to the current models has delivered results, but it feels like "mainframe" era of computing to me.

Throwing reams of annotated human content and forcing the machine to globally draw associations from it feels clumsy. Just as people are able to learn structured knowledge via rule-systems that are successively elaborated with extensions and situational contradictions, I feel like there's probably a much more compact representational model that can be reached by adapting the current technical foundations (transformers, attention, etc.) to work well with generated examples from rule-systems, that then gets used as a base layer to augment the "high level" models that process unstructured data.

The risk for the behemoth datacenter might be similar to the risk in the early computing era of building compute centers right before the PC revolution took off.

If it turns out that there exists some more compact and efficient representation for this intelligence (which IMHO is likely given that we are still in the first generation of this technology), the datacenters may end up decaying mausoleums of old tech that has no relevance to a distributed intelligence future.

That's the big technical unknown unknown for me. How much efficiency juice is there left to squeeze, and what does that mean for a distributed landscape vs a centralized datacenter based landscape.

I have reasonable eng chops I'd like to think - I have been a senior IC for a while on a reasonably diverse set of challenging systems problems and built out some pretty large-scale pieces of software the old "artisinal" way.

This particular project is a productization of some ideas I had for leveraging a virtual machine to execute high-divergence parallel logic on GPUs, in an effort to move complex things like "unit behaviour in games" (the classical symbolic kind, not NN-based unit behaviour) into the GPU. The project is going well but still quite a ways from release. But it's at about 300k lines of code now across 9 or so rust repositories, and a smattering of typescript on the frontend.

I have had stumbles, but overall I feel I have put together some good strategies and principles for pushing large projects along with these tools in an effective way.

The biggest takeaway for me is that the "feel" is different. Software construction by hand felt like building legos where you put the pieces together yourself. A lot of my focus would be on building and solidifying core components so I could rely on them when I stepped up to build higher-level components. Projects would get mired quickly if you didn't solidify your base.

With agentic development, one of the early challenges I ran into was this issue with something I'll call "oversight inception". It's when at some early point in the process a somewhat low-importance decision is made - an implementation decision, a decision to say.. align a test with the implementation rather than an implementation with a test.

Then, as you build more on top of this, that small decision somehow ends up getting reified into a core architectural policy that then cascades up.

You realize that when you're building a big project, the focus on some particular component is backstopped by a general understanding of local development directionality with respect to the larger level project. And the agent has no idea of directionality.

So small chinks in the design end up getting magnified and blown up as the dev process proceeds, and later on review you find major architectural pieces have just been overlooked, all flowing from some small incidental implementation choice a long time before.

This is one among a number of issues, but it's a big one. Once I saw it happening I tried an approach to mitigate it by developing a set of golden "goal" documents that describe directionality at the project level: what you are working towards and what design components need to exist.

This doesn't eliminate the "oversight inception" issue, but it does catch them earlier.

When I started applying the goal documentation aggressively to re-align the project implementation direction, I found velocity dropped a lot.

And as I progress, I'm balancing this out a bit - to allow the system to diverge a bit, but force reconvergence towards the goals at some specific cadence. I haven't found the right candence yet but I'm getting there.

This new style of development feels more like claymoulding pottery than lego assembly. You sort of "get it into shape". It's a very interesting new set of process assumptions.