richk449

I wholeheartedly agree. We are heading for troubled waters.

All I can do is hold the people around me accountable for doing high quality work. But everywhere I look, there are too much incentive to just let AI do the thinking for you. My generation will be okay for the most part, since we spent decades thinking prior to AI. It is unclear if the next generations, that haven't already learned how to think, will ever learn.

This is the important part. Right now, AI is a tool. You can use it to generate high quality output, or you can use it to generate slop. If the output is slop, that is a reflection of the person using the tool, not AI.

I get AI slop from employees sometimes. If they provide poor quality work that hasn't been proofread, that is an employee problem, not an AI problem.

That explanation is entirely inconsistent with sambellll's statement that when the user clicks a floor, the display tells them what elevator to take, and that elevator is then locked into going to that floor.

Also, I don't think that destination dispatch would work if the elevator didn't commit to going to the users's floor at the point the user got onboard. It may also stop at additional floors that weren't committed to when the user entered, and it may drop floors it was thinking of going to before it picked up the user (if the user onboard isn't going to those floors), but once the user gets onboard, that floor is a hard commitment.

Interesting. I didn't realize that destination dispatch told the user what elevator to take at the time of request. (I've never used it.)

Why not have active display above each elevator that says what floors it is going to when it opens?

It is almost certainly because of the way the simulation was performed:

It turns out these fancy kiosks are in general worse for wait times compared to the traditional good ol' up and down buttons. There are certainly edge cases when the kiosks can win out (extremely tall buildings with 8+ cars per elevator bank) but for the majority of cases, simple up down buttons reign supreme.

This counterintuitive result is all thanks to the rebalancing step where every 5 seconds, the system re-optimizes each elevator's path. The kiosk enforces rigidity, you must get in the assigned elevator.

There should be no way that only having more information results in a worse outcome. At minimum, you could ignore the extra information, and achieve the same results as using up and down buttons.

Seems like the real reason it performed worse in this simulation is that when they implemented destination dispatch, they assigned an elevator at time of request, and had no system for reviewing and updated that assignment.

If you want to know if something is a human or a parrot, you could give it a paint brush and ask it to paint the Mona Lisa.

It is also possible that the enlightenment only happened because of protestant reformation, which only happened because of the power and abuses of the Catholic Church. So in a way, we have the Catholic Church to thank for modern society.

The reformation was highly religious of course, but it was also about reading original sources, devolving power from a central authority, and allowing individuals to discover the truth.

Sometimes I think that the catholic church is like Leto II in Dune - ruling people so that they will rebel in a way that there can never again be a central power structure.

I’ve been using cadquery and build123 with Claude code and I find it incredibly painful.

What is your workflow for llm integration to openscad?

You don't need WSL to run Claude code on windows.

Unlike conventional cars that require expensive safety systems such as air bags and seat belts, the mover3000's top speed of one mile per hour makes it intrinsically safe.

This authorizes an attack on Iran?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

I love the visual of humans desperately trying to preserve what they consider the natural world, and when they turn their backs evolution does it's thing.

In this analogy though, maps are the only things we have access to. There may be Truth, but we only approximate it with our maps.

How do you give cc the ability to compile in a loop?

Slack is orders of magnitude better than Teams.

Google docs is better than Microsoft office, but only by a little.

Google drive is many many orders of magnitude better than Sharepoint.

It sounds like you are making a distinction between digital (silicon computers) and analog (biological brains).

As far as possible reasons that a computer can’t achieve AGI go, this seems like the best one (assuming computer means digital computer of course).

But in a philosophical sense, a computer obeys the same laws of physics that a brain does, and the transistors are analog devices that are being used to create a digital architecture. So whatever makes you brain have uncountable states would also make a real digital computer have uncountable states. Of course we can claim that only the digital layer on top matters, but why?

HFSS does a typical FEM matrix solve then displays the results. It is often used for very complex or large problems, so as far as I know it isn’t set up for instant display of results. That would be a neat feature for small problems.

> if these tools are close to having super-human intelligence, and they make humans so much more productive, why aren't we seeing improvements at a much faster rate than we are now? Why aren't inherent problems like hallucination already solved, or at least less of an issue? Surely the smartest researchers and engineers money can buy would be dogfooding, no?

Hallucination does seem to be much less of an issue now. I hardly even hear about it - like it just faded away.

As far as I can tell smart engineers are using AI tools, particularly people doing coding, but even non-coding roles.

The criticism feels about three years out of date.

> If they would expect to achieve AGI soon, their behaviour would be completely different. Why bother developing chatbots or doing sales, when you will be operating AGI in a few short years?

What if chatbots and user interactions ARE the path to AGI? Two reasons they could be: (1) Reinforcement learning in AI has proven to be very powerful. Humans get to GI through learning too - they aren’t born with much intelligence. Interactions between AI and humans may be the fastest way to get to AGI. (2) The classic Silicon Valley startup model is to push to customers as soon as possible (MVP). You don’t develop the perfect solution in isolation, and then deploy it once it is polished. You get users to try it and give feedback as soon as you have something they can try.

I don’t have any special insight into AI or AGI, but I don’t think OpenAI selling useful and profitable products is proof that there won’t be AI.

What’s the latest on open/free solvers to replace HFSS/CST?

Why do you say that America looks in research as a waste? We spend higher percentage of gdp on R&D than just about any other country in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_re...

It seems amazing it has taken this long. Electric motors are so critical to national security, as well as the US economy.

I keep wondering if these folks have a realistic alternative: https://www.nironmagnetics.com/ (They claim high performance rare earth free magnets.)

Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5553.Six_Easy_Pieces

The art of doing science and engineering by Richard Hamming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Doing_Science_and_E...

What is a hyperscaler for autos?

Is this really true? The linear algebra is deterministic, although maybe there is some chaotic behavior with floating point handling. The non deterministic part mostly comes from intentionally added randomness, which can be turned off right?

Maybe the argument is that if you turn off the randomness you don’t have an LLM like result any more?

Is there an effort to get this underway? I’m no expert, but I would guess that the two expensive parts are the electron source and the vacuum pump. UHV chambers seem solvable, and detectors are probably cheaply obtainable. High voltage power supplies can probably also be cheap.

So what is number 2?

Black mirror was a British show first. I don’t know the others except for Man on the Inside - I’m skeptical, but if it turns out to as good as The Good Place, it will be impressive for Netflix.

Has recent Netflix done anything that comes close to The Wire? Or to Breaking Bad?

I’m not sure that the writing quality is the point. A better question to ask whether the creator has something they are trying to convey. It can be something artistic, or philosophical, or ethical, or none-of-the-above, but there is something there someone behind the series believes in.

So much of what is on Netflix feels like a Hallmark Special with better writing and cinematography. It’s still empty calories.