I'm not sure how this maps onto reality. If each agent had a different problem to solve, how did they cooperate?

Yikes! I really wonder about the cognitive dissonance necessary to work at OpenAI these days. They’re in an arms race to build a machine god, knowing full well that it could end humanity.

To be fair, I’ve reached the point where most random blog posts I read on the internet seem AI written, so it could just be confirmation bias on my part.

I feel pretty confident that I could describe to you a case (either real or hypothetical) where you would reject an artist based on their personal behavior, rather than their art. You would find it quite difficult in such a case to separate the two.

So the question is where to draw the line, and everyone answers that question differently.

Professionally, my experience is that certain software components need to run together on an individual machine (e.g. database server, app server, web server), and then those machines need to be networked in a certain way (e.g. web server talks to app server, which talks to database server), so I really need to care about the architecture of individual machines. You can then scale this out horizontally (e.g. add another web server) or vertically (e.g. upgrade your database server).

I'm old, so maybe I'm out of date, but having a cluster of "compute" that I can run arbitrary workloads on sounds neat, but is a capability that I've never needed.

From my very ignorant standpoint, K8s seems to be about running a "cluster", but I don't know why I would want to do that.

This amounts to "We deleted all your data in order to keep it safe." WTF.

Surely that is not the only dimension that matters when evaluating software. Maintainability and readability, for example, are crucial for any long-lived project.