Their writing about the model so far does say this is an issue where, for instance, you can't really use Mythos for interactive coding because it's so slow. You have to give it some work, go home, sleep, come in the next day and then maybe it'll have something for you.

All the AI labs and startups are still losing money hand over fist. Launching Mythos would require it to be priced well above current models, for a much slower product. Would the majority of customers notice the difference in intelligence given the tasks they're setting? If the answer is no, it's not economic to launch.

Really, I'm surprised they've done Mythos. Maybe they just wanted to exploit access to larger contiguous training datacenters than OpenAI, but what these labs need isn't smarter models, it's smaller and cheaper models that users will accept as good enough substitutes (or more advanced model routing, dynamic thinking, etc).

The Windows I remember was in some ways actually less consistent than what we have now. It was common for apps to be themeable, to use weirdly shaped windows, to have very different icon themes or button colors, etc. Every app developer wanted to have a strong brand, which meant not using the default UI choices. And Microsoft's UI guidelines weren't strong enough to generate consistency - even basic things like where the settings window could be found weren't consistent. Sometimes it was Edit > Preferences. Sometimes File > Settings. Sometimes zooming was under View, sometimes under Window.

The big problem with the web and the newer web-derived mobile paradigms is the conflation between theme and widget library, under the name "design system". The native desktop era was relatively good at keeping these concepts separated but the web isn't, the result is a morass of very low effort and crappy widgets that often fail at the subtle details MS/Apple got right. And browsers can't help because every other year designers decide that the basic behaviors of e.g. text fields needs to change in ways that wouldn't be supported by the browser's own widgets.

I've also (separately) got a tool for local dev that sets up containers and does SSL interception on traffic from the agent, so it could also swap creds and similar.

The reason they're separate is that in a corp environment the expectation is very strongly that an email account = a human. You can't easily provision full employee accounts for AIs, HR doesn't know anything about that :) In my own company I am HR, so that's not a problem.

Useful work includes: bug triage, matching up external user bug reports on GitHub to the internal YouTrack, fixing easy looking bugs, working on a redesign of the website. I also want to extend it to handling the quarterly accounting, which is already largely automated with AI but I still need to run the scripts myself, preparing answers to support queries, and more work on bug fixing+features. It has access to the bug tracker, internal git and CI system as if it were an employee and uses all of those quite successfully.

Meta-work has so far included: making a console so I can watch what it's doing when it wakes up, regularly organizing its own notes and home directory, improving the wakeup rhythm, and packaging up its infrastructure to a repeatable install script so I can create more of them. I work with a charity in the UK whose owner has expressed interest in an OpenClaw but I warned him off because of all the horror stories. If this experiment continues to work out I might create some more agents for people like him.

I'm not sure it's super useful for individuals. I haven't felt any great need to treat it as a personal assistant yet. ChatGPT web UI works fine for most day to day stuff in my personal life. It's very much acting like an extra employee would at a software company, not a personal secretary or anything like that.

It sounds like our experience differs because you wanted something more controlled with access to your own personal information like email, etc, whereas I gave "Axiom" (it chose its own name) its own accounts and keep it strictly separated from mine. Also, so far I haven't given it many regular repeating tasks beyond a nightly wakeup to maintain its own home directory. I can imagine that for e.g. the accounting work we'd need to do some meta-work first on a calendar integration so it doesn't forget.

I haven't seen any issues with memory so far. Using one long rolling context window, a diary and a markdown wiki folder seems sufficient to have it do stuff well. It's early days still and I might still encounter issues as I demand more, but I might just create a second or third bot and treat them as 'specialists' as I would with employees.

Tja - German for "well".

IMANAH - I am not a historian.

That's a weird thing to say. Studies of primitive tribes showed decades ago that they only seem to fight each other for a handful of reasons. Religion, ethnicity and political beliefs aren't among them. Fighting over resources, women and blood feuds are.

Supposedly academic anthropology had difficulties accepting these findings, especially the Yamomamö studies by Chagnon where he documented them going to war to steal each other's women, as it contradicted the popular idea of the noble savage.

Computers have been automating things for decades. My father had a private secretary at work, something considered normal for a mid-career executive back then (he was an engineer!). I've done very well in my career but a private secretary is quite out of reach. That doesn't mean that we had a "lost generation" on our hands.

And yesterday a friend showed me what his 11 year old was vibing up with Claude Code. A whole web app he can use to help organize some stuff with his friends related to Roblox (I dunno what it was meant to be, you had to log in for most of it). The kid is amazed that his father understands all the mysterious symbols Claude generates. And he probably always will, the same way I listen to stories about how my father could fix car engines with mild amazement as well.

There's a huge market for doom stories out there and the NYT is a rag that was just yesterday reporting that Adam Back was Satoshi based on nothing deeper than the journalists gut feeling. "Studies" in social science can show whatever the author wants, and the authors want clicks from their AI-hating left wing readership. Stay skeptical!

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health-systems/expert-warns-swi...

https://www.swiss-medtech.ch/en/news/cost-control-initiative

But Swiss pharma price controls are not very populist. We basically use the communist approach of stealing prices from less regulated markets. The FOPH looks at international prices in "comparable markets" to help decide what the Swiss prices should be. Not sure which markets are comparable but surely the US is one. So if prices go up in less regulated markets, they go up here too.

There is still a lot of waste and healthcare costs too much. It is high quality but I am often impressed by how much low hanging fruit there is to save money apparently without harming the quality of care delivered.

But if he did want to spend he could just start from his last coins backwards.

The small block faction, of which Adam was absolutely one of the ring leaders, were willing to do literally anything to win. They were and still are collectivist totalitarians. Above it was described as a debate, but it wasn't, it was more like a war. Amongst other things, the small block faction:

• Launched botnet attacks on any node or company that expressed support for big blocks. They took Coinbase offline, they took any mining pool offline for merely allowing users to vote for big blocks. They took out entire datacenters because it hosted a single node expressing support for bigger blocks in its version handshake. One of these attacks was big enough to take out the internet for an entire rural ISP.

• Constantly lied about everyone who was working on bigger blocks. I've actually met people who said they didn't trust me because I worked for British intelligence. I've never worked for British intelligence!

• They wrote a tool to fuck with the vote we were trying to run. Back was fully in support of such tactics: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hb63g/bip_suggest...

• They constantly manipulated people, promising them they'd work on a compromise solution whilst actually refusing to do so and organizing conferences with rules like "nobody is allowed to discuss solutions to the problem" or "nobody is allowed to make written notes".

... and more. I don't recall Adam expressing any opposition to these acts or trying to stop them. Frequently he was directly engaged in them (not sure who was behind the DDoS attacks, but none of the Blockstreamers publicly asked them to stop).

Satoshi's account had been hacked at that time, and one of the main arguments for raising the block size was simply that it wasn't controversial at all - it was in fact the planned roadmap for Bitcoin from day one, that everyone had signed up to and that Satoshi had discussed. Given their willingness to lie to everyone else and use outright illegal tactics to win, would a small blocker have forged an email from Satoshi? Absolutely they would, which is why nobody cared about it and it made no difference. Especially as that email inexplicably refuted a position Satoshi had repeatedly defended for years, without explanation.

Actually I don't see how anyone involved with Blockstream could be identified as Satoshi. They never believed in what Satoshi was doing and built their whole company around the claim that Satoshi had screwed up the core of the system's design, despite that nothing about the design or its assumptions had changed. They spent years raising investor capital (why would you do that if you were rich?) specifically to build a system designed to replace Bitcoin for end users.

The last time I met Adam he was trying to convince me to not continue working on Satoshi's original design, and none of his arguments were technical. Satoshi had a totally different approach.