The reason you don't use a "grown up VM" is because it's significantly more difficult. Which VM? Firecracker requires KVM and a guest operating system - so how are you getting things in and out in a way that doesn't violate security? That's real work.

gVisor is great and my recommendation, certainly, but the difference between "nothing" and "docker" is actually pretty huge imo.

The trickier part is dev environments, but ideally you take a similar approach. The place that devs do `npm install` should be isolated from, say, your browser / ssh keys etc.

Package manager support would be an amazing win here since you'd have an easier time managing the isolation but you can do this today.

I expect the people with low market value to be the ones sticking around labs for long periods of time, they don't have the option to move and they aren't getting poached.

So nothing new then.

Yes, reduction would be one very viable strategy. It doesn't require precisely defining the phenomenon in order for me to just say that it reduces based on the fact that reduction has been a successful approach for everything else in cognition.

> There is an in principle barrier to a transparent structural description of phenomenal consciousness.

Yeah this is what I reject. Why do you say that this is in principle a barrier? You're discussing it as an explanatory gap, not in principle.

Great, I'm a physicalist so uhhhh I reject this lol. I think you can define cognitive capabilities and phenomenal experience by reducing to structure and function. You're right that it's simple though.

You can derive consciousness as a somewhat obvious conclusion of empirical study of behaviors, we have multiple fields of study that lay out cognitive function and criteria.

I guess a response at the industry level would be not hiring ex-FB people etc, treating it as a red flag.

Well, presumably they want to contribute to the compiler. I know that you did not like those contributions, and that view seems entirely valid, but obviously "no AI" rules out their development model (by design, and you likely think that's good, and maybe it is!).

Not intending to defend the bun move, but obviously a project using Zig and also using AI might feel motivated to avoid Zig since they're ruled out as contributors.

TBH I think that makes no sense ("I have an LLM written PR ready, can I open it?") but yeah the policy is also in draft and has actually already changed since my first comment.

That's in the "allowed with caveats" section. It's just saying to not open bug reports without first reading them yourself or your bug may be closed. No one is saying "by policy we will have to add the bug back in" jesus christ

The policy is insanely straightforward, idk how you can be misinterpreting it this badly. It's just "Disclose that you use a model, you are on the hook for reviewing model output as a human" and then some clear cut examples.

I suppose to keep the password analogy together, people reuse passwords all the time, timing attacks exist, etc?

This policy does not seem to forbid vibe coding?

This is not very different from the Linux kernel's policy so it's an odd comparison. It's actually almost identical in practical terms.

edit: lol proof that this doc needs to be stupidly explicit is in the pudding with the HN comments going out of their way to radically misread it