LaTeX will have a special spot in my heart, but it's pretty bloated (even minimalist distributions) and suffers from being an early pass at a problem.

That said, installing any package is a liability, whether it's a library or an mcp server.

As a young math researcher, my mentor definitely did not believe that Math was the absolute descriptor of the universe.

You can definitely imagine a scenario where the world does not operate perfectly mathematically correct though Math still exists - as an abstract separate entity.

You can do this such that everytime you recognize a new quirk in the world, then you can invent some new math/logical framework to match/approximate the current understanding. I don't know if this is the reality of this world, but when you look at things like complexity theory you have to wonder "okay... maybe we designed a useful system rather than discovering a true law of reality"

1. it's very difficult to verify how a llm will behave without running it 2. there is an intentional ignorance around the security issues of running models

I think this research makes the speculative concrete

  "LISTEN/NOTIFY got us to this level of concurrency; here's how we diagnosed the performance cliff, and here's what we're doing now."

That said, this comes up often in my office. It's just not giving really good advice in many situations - especially novel ones.

AI is super good at coming up with things that have been written ad nauseam for coding-interview-prep website

1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law

My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. When I look at the litany of derivative fantasy novels, it's obvious they're not all fully independent works.

Since AI is and will continue to be so useful and transformative, I think we just need to acknowledge that our laws did not accomodate this use-case, then we should change them.

Limiting the ability to _easily_ modify what's running on a system is more about public cyber-health than the individual's freedom. Viruses + malware much more easily infect systems when they are running outside of a sandbox.

Would be really cool to convert it's predictive model into a computer program that predicts written in like python/C/rust/whatever, and I think that would better serve our ability to understand the world.