causal

It's also absurd how few jobs or income they provide to the community that is expected to host htem

That just raises more questions. What kind "observation or action" image does input generate? What is an action output if it's not text?

Yeah took way too long to find that result. Being able to run on slow RAM isn't surprising considering you can run a model off an SSD.

I'm struggling to understand what this does.

> Generates future observations and action sequences.

Is that just a complicated way of saying video gen?

Seems like another one of those "kill or be killed" worldviews that embraces the multipolar trap to such an extreme that even misaligned AI is seen as a win so long as it's better at circumventing its masters than some imagined rival AI (presumably in China).

Intentional security holes are still security holes

I feel like everyone pointing out "known Docker vulnerability" is missing the point: the presence of a security hole should not be seen as permission to exploit.

Another security hole would be storing your passwords in a plaintext file on the desktop. Stupid? Yes. But I still would not want my agent to assume permission to access email when it's being blocked by 2FA.

Even in "bypass permissions" mode I expect it to pause and clarify and not behave as a paperclip maximizer.

I've never used smolmachines but I'm curious; why this over a container?

You completely misunderstood it then. It was not about utilizing broad social networks nor was it about not-using AI.

Even just having to clock in on time is something many tech folk don't really have to bear.

But I don't think it's charitable to assume the author doesn't understand what he is getting himself into. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt and increase my admiration for his commitment accordingly.

Yeah I hit reply knowing the "hold my beer" crowd would disagree but I stand by the claim :)

> We need to invent new reasons to be together.

People are so accustomed to their community and purpose coming from their job that AI doing work on our behalf threatens not just our income, but our entire social identity.

I think you're hinting at an interesting distinction in how AI interaction can play out. Sometimes it makes you feel like you have been cut out and are now an outsider on your own project, other times it introduces you to something and helps you get started in a world you could not access on your own.

Elitism excludes humans from one another, which is exactly what the poem is encouraging you not to do

Before Uber it was totally normal to ask someone, even an acquaintance, for a ride to the airport.

Good point. Fixating of the fly-fishing example is silly to begin with but yeah- if you don't know a guy, it's certainly an opportunity to meet one.

Eh, the poem doesn't suggest technology isn't ever useful. It's highlighting that the inefficiency of human relationship is a feature, not a bug.

You might not have a friend who is into fly-fishing, but surely you know somebody into SOMETHING you could ask about. Maybe that's less efficient, maybe it's less direct. But our whole reason for existing, all of the stuff that gives life meaning- it requires each other, and technology is getting dangerously close to replacing relationships altogether.

I don't think this is meant to guilt you for using tech, but it is totally a wake up call to remembering WHY we fly fish and go to weddings and write memoirs and so on.

> instead of a hand-crafted custom blog

I think this kind of elitism also misses the point.

This does not just apply to AI. Uber, AirBNB, Facebook, etc. all basically serve as paid surrogates for what once was done by community.

Sometimes it feels like all digital technology is simply an enterprise to replace human to human contact.

It might be psychosis.

> Psychosis is the term for a collection of symptoms that happen when a person has trouble telling the difference between what’s real and what’s not[0]

For many seemingly intelligent, rational, competent humans AI has become a layer between them and reality that has absolutely sabotaged their ability to know what is real.

[0] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23012-psychos...

This makes more sense to me. The bottleneck for me is less becoming "understanding code" and more "understanding users". Validating the latter is a task non-programmers can do.

Python is much older than Java, and Java is a big OO-first language. It's a bit like saying Python doesn't do functional as well as Erlang.

It's not "privatising ethics enforcement" at all - it's just letting the free market put dollar amounts on the actual cost of staffing reckless officers. The actuaries won't be reading textbooks on ethics, they're going to look at the same thing they do for drivers: history of violations, incidents, etc.

A simpler explanation is that more people are using ChatGPT

Yeah I want them to do well. I find Cursor to be a much better tool for actually working with the code the agent writes than whatever the big vendors provide.

Haha I can't even trust developers who know the dangers of what they're doing to vibe code responsibly

What doesn't make sense to me here is that even on Earth, where we have an atmosphere to disperse heat into, we find that closed-loop cooling is too expensive and so use evaporative cooling.

If the economics make it too expensive not to use freshwater on Earth, I don't see how closed-loop cooling suddenly becomes affordable in space where dispersing heat is already more difficult.

"manipulate the code in unprecedented ways" is pretty vague and of uncertain value, can you elaborate?

While true, I think you're underestimating

1) how long it will take just to bring wells back online, let alone a whole new distribution network

2) how vulnerable pipelines are

3) how much cheaper and faster shipping on water is

I would at least double the estimated timeframe needed to make the strait matter less.

I think climate change is a compelling crisis but I find these types of “could maybe happen according to some models” type of catastrophic scenarios a little frustrating because they soak up a lot of attention with scary headlines, reinforcing hopelessness in those who care while providing ammunition to skeptics when the catastrophe doesn’t materialize.

It’s also easy to question methodology for anyone who has done academic modeling and knows how easy it is to get the result you want. Much harder to argue against the basic first principle that injecting trillions of barrels of oil into the atmosphere is literal geoengineering and it’s gonna have consequences.