Since you mentioned pySDR: `sdr` is a newer Python library I like https://github.com/mhostetter/sdr

https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175?s=20

Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.

In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.

AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of > our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only.

We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our > strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements.

We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place.

Amazing / weird that this sounds like a lot of the stuff Amodei said Anthropic asked for

Sounds like your approach works for you.

Here's a similar post with more concrete advice on what to write: https://jamesmckay.net/2017/02/how-to-keep-lab-notes-as-a-so...

1. Choose the most low-friction solution you can get your hands on. 2. Write down everything you do, as you do it. 3. You can not be too detailed. 4. Write down your train of thought when you’re planning and designing your code. 5. Don't worry too much about making your notes look good. 6. Use a searchable text format. 7. Make your notes append-only. 8. Use your notes as a source for documentation, commit summaries and pull request descriptions. 9. Share your notes with your whole team. 10. Don’t make your notes public. 11. Learn from your mistakes.

I used to use HackMD but I have found Obsidian helps me better meet the criteria above (low-friction yet searchable).

I have learned the hard way, repeatedly, that forcing myself to write down a to-do list and notes on what I did actually makes me a better developer, even when I am in software engineering mode, not research mode. I make myself prioritize what to do, I retain better what I've learned, and I converge on solutions faster.

The whole point of MyST is to provide a markdown-like alternative to rST. It literally has directives, roles, structural semantics, etc. It just doesn't have the unlearnable syntax of rST and the so-called governance of docutils (the de facto rST parser) (see e.g. discussion on https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/8039 and linking issues)

If you are really curious, I invite you to read this cognitive science paper, "Modern Alchemy: Neurocognitive Reverse Engineering": https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25289/1/GuestEtAl2025.pdf

Note the quote at the top from Abeba Birhane: > We can only presume to build machines like us once we see ourselves as machines first.

It reminds me of your comment that

> [LLMs] seem to think more than most people I know

and I have to say that I am really sad that you feel this way. I hope you can find better people to spend your time with.

You might find other recent papers from the first author interesting. Perhaps it will help you understand that there are a lot of deeply curious people in the world that are also really fucking sick of our entire culture being poisoned by intellectual e-waste from Silicon Valley.

You can't even read posts clearly, so don't waste your time trying to finish your first book.

This is what happens when our entire culture revolves around the idea that computer programmers are the most special smartest boys.

If you even entertain even for a second the idea that a computer program that a human wrote is "thinking", then you don't understand basic facts about: (1) computers, (2) humans, and (3) thinking. Our educational system has failed to inoculate you against this laughable idea.

A statistical model of language will always be a statistical model of language, and nothing more.

A computer will never think, because thinking is something that humans do, because it helps them stay alive. Computers will never be alive. Unplug your computer, walk away for ten years, plug it back in. It's fine--the only reason it won't work is planned obsolescence.

No, I don't want to read your reply that one time you wrote a prompt that got ChatGPT to whisper the secrets of the universe into your ear. We've known at least since Joseph Weizenbaum coded up Eliza that humans will think a computer is alive if it talks to them. You are hard-wired to believe that anything that produces language is a human just like you. Seems like it's a bug, not a feature.

Stop commenting on Hacker News, turn off your phone, read this book, and tell all the other sicko freaks in your LessWrong cult to read it too: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262551328/a-drive-to-survive/ Then join a Buddhist monastery and spend a lifetime pondering how deeply wrong you were.

(that @mindcrime shared when they posted this but I had already read elsewhere)

Good thread on paper from author: https://bsky.app/profile/pettertornberg.com/post/3lvpsdimbu2...

Some random search results:

- https://www.tadeasjun.com/blog/2d-level-design/ mostly talks about Celeste

- GDC talk from Maddy Thorson linked from that post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RlpMhBKNr0

- previous HN post (original link seems to be dead) with links to other talks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20177157

See also funding from CZI (on the blog)

Subjectively I do find it helps with consistency -- and when things are not consistent, it's easier to discover what's different and why

edit: but I completely agree with this post and the follow-up from the same author on "dumbpy". At least at first blush, I need to read in more detail.