> GPT-5.2 played things differently. To its detriment in open-ended scenarios, GPT was reliably passive, matching its words to its deeds, and avoiding escalation most of the time. Frequently there was a moral element to this - it sought to avoid escalation, and restrict casualties. Opponents learned to trust its passivity, safely escalating beyond where it would follow, even as it was ground to defeat. GPT’s responsible behaviour always punished by ruthless adversaries.

Maybe the author should praise GPT-5.2 for being ethical, rather than this stupid "ground to defeat" framing? Wrt "responsible behaviour always punished by ruthless adversaries" - you have perpetuated the Moloch with your stupid experiments.

I thought the main reason for using Claude Code was that it was the only harness one was allowed to use with the Claude subscription plan...

I understand as much.

> It's not really a design choice.

That explains it then. Pretty damning though, no?

I like me a good type system and have always hated about everything about types in Python. What do you find nice and like about it?

(My experience with Python: all the type checkers are broken, there are false positives and false negatives everywhere. The LSPs are likewise broken, I have not found one that knew the types at least somewhat reliably...)

It kind of is? All the partial-typing systems are too complex and usually broken in various ways. Compare to eg Elm or Gleam which are typed and super simple.

There is, and always will be, a huge difference between "because a LLM said so" and "here is a proof this is memory safe".

About what precisely?

I think so too. I also thought that about Facebook: IPO around 40, swiftly down to 20 - I was laughing about stupid retail getting wrecked. Now it's around 600...

Yes, if you value spending time with parents of same-aged children. My social life is still fine, but the people I spend my time with are competely different. Not better, nor worse, just entirely different.

If one has read and understood the "They're made out of meat" story, they already fully understood the point made by "They're made out of weights".

The problem isn't the amount of code, it's how fitting/unfitting the abstractions are. Wrong abstractions are bugs in waiting. If there's much code with wrong abstractions, future change becomes difficult.

Source: me, I've created many bad abstractions and they led to much pain...

Oh I have no doubt. With 8 times the number of bugs too? Have they solved flicker in Claude code yet?