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.

That said, "move to a small town" is easier said than done when you have a family and kid :)

I don't see child welfare agencies personally as a particular threat when it comes to this topic. Maybe they ARE more likely to get involved in cases of more free range parenting where before they weren't, but it doesn't register as a real worry.

The major difference I see between when I was growing up and now is that when I went out onto the streets, there were other kids on the streets. My parents didn't know exactly what they were sending me out to, but they knew that there as a general crowd of kids that would be out on the street until some point in the evening, and that they would all go home at around the same time, and that's also when you were expected home.

The draw of smartphones and video games as indoor entertainment can't be understated, but I can exercise some parental tyranny here and always kick him out of the house to go play like my folks used to do.

But there are no other kids out there. I'm sending him out into streets empty of kids.

To mitigate this I'm trying to nudge things in the direction of him and his friends forming some sort of after-school crew that finds outside activities to do together, undirected. There are other like minded parents that I've found that are also interested in enabling something like this.

On the subject of risks - I strongly believe that the role of parenthood is to mediate a child's exposure to the real trauma of a hostile, often absurd reality that they will grow up into. Controlled exposure to risk, to self-directed decision making in times where they feel like someone won't be there to help them out and they need to figure things out on their own, these are critical requirements in parenting IMHO. And all risk comes with some small chance of tragedy, and that's a burden we as parents have to bear: to expose ourselves to the emotional trauma of the possibility of our children getting hurt, however small the chance, so that they are able to grow into healthy well-adjusted adults.

I feel like I have to work a lot harder than my parents did to enable that exposure.

In retrospect though, the company wasn't making a technology decision. They were making a decision between Jobs and Gassee. Jobs came with NeXT and Gassee came with Be.

I don't think the technology mattered that much in the large scale of things. Jobs brought with him a strategy for moving personal computing from a technical market category to a fashion market category - either to make technology fashionable or to make fashion technical (however you want to look at it). It's a strategy that started with candy-coloured iMacs and ended with iPhones.

Gassee brought a really cool OS.

Apple made the right choice.

This is not some end state of success, but a process. It's people sharing their ideas, thoughts, and strategies on how to accomplish a relatively challenging economic shift.

What you are witnessing and commenting on is quite literally the messy business of a market organically evolving and developing. "Not American" is now a selling point for services.

What I don't understand is what analytical value the term "the west" holds anymore, OUTSIDE of that historical artifact. What meaningful statement can you make about "the west" as you define it these days?

"The west" is no longer a well defined thing. America is its own thing now, and I don't think it fits in with any traditional notion of "The West" anymore, outside of historical inclusion. And without America the term just means Europe, so you might as well just refer to things directly instead of coming up with a new term: America, Europe, Canada, etc.

It provides no analytical value anymore to talk about "the west" as a shared family of identities or cultures. That concept was more an ephemeral artifact of some colonial history combined with the post WW2 global landscape and the fact that the US was the last industrialized country remaining that didn't have its industrial base bombed to smithereens.

I agree that the modern diaper is so good that it effectively disconnects the feeling of evacuation from the consequence of it.

I think the other thing kids pick up on when you're mopping up their floor leavings is the grossness aspect, which is a bit more learned. They see you grimacing every time you touch it - they see you taking care to ensure that it doesn't get on other parts of your body. Toddlers watch body language and reactions a lot to understand how they should relate to things.

Infinite exponential growth is something we ALL "believe" in when we put a dollar into savings and expect to get a dollar and 5c out the next year.

The problem to me seems more that we tie all sorts of OTHER structural societal constructs to this one. To the degree that if we want to feed ourselves, clothe ourselves, and ensure shelter and security for ourselves and our loved ones - those basic _biological_ needs shared by most moderately sophisticated mammals - we are forced to plug into this system and ensure it delivers on its promise.

I've incorporated that infinite growth expectation into my kid's education plans, into our family retirement plans.

This is not a they issue, this is a we issue. The systemic structure is some parts organic but many parts choice and belief driven by general people on the street.

Just thought I'd pass along the one training suggestion I have. Cloth or disposable.. when you're ready for them to move off it - it really helps if they're able to see and associate their bowel and bladder movements with the physical artifacts.

I suspect it helps it click faster that yes, "this is the stuff that needs to go into the potty and not pooling around my legs in a clammy cold puddle".

I'm in my mid 40s, I've had a really fulfilling career working on interesting things and making decent money, and over that time have accumulated a few passion projects that I knew were always out of my reach.

Well, technically within my reach but I'd need to somehow find someone to pay for me and a team for some period of time to work on stuff.

When I started playing around with these tools, it started feeling like maybe some of my ideas were within reach. Some time after, it felt plausible enough that I've decided to go for it. I'm actively in the middle of some deep performance research that I simply would not have the bandwidth or capacity for without these tools.

I've also managed to acquire enough confidence in the likelyhood of some degree of success that I'm investing in starting a company (self-funded) to develop and release and license the stuff i'm building.

I don't know exactly how my ideas will turn out, but that's part of the excitement and anticipation. Point is I never felt I had enough breathing room to really go for it (between normal life obligations like mortgage, feeding kids, etc.)

These tools have changed the equation enough that it's made it more feasible for me to pursue some of these ideas on my own. Things I would have shelved for the rest of my life, probably.. or maybe tried to encourage and interest others into doing.

Lazy thinking makes LLMs do surface analysis and then produce things that are wrong. Neurotic thinking will see them over-analyze, and then repeatedly second-guess themselves, repeatedly re-derive conclusions.

Something very similar to an anxiety loop in humans, where problems without solutions are obsessed about in circles.

Wisdom is understanding that if there was legislation on the matter, and people who ate, produced, or sold non-tomato fruits were hunted and deprived of their freedoms by the state on the basis that fruits are bad for society, then you would likely see similar frustrations expressed about an article title that includes the phrase "tomatoes and fruits" to distinguish them.