I havent used nor gondolin neither docker's solution, but curious to know what gondolin is missing (evaluating both for my personal use)? is it only the DX or something else, if DX, can you what exactly is missing?
thanks
2,362 karma · joined February 19, 2023
thanks
One thing I wonder is, do you mentally 'fight back' monotonicity of your interactive tool? All seem to be in 3D space, with low-poly, like in a factory moving through the belt and giving you an information + textual description to read more
But sometimes you want to visualize the charts, or graph of simulations, or maybe even the parts of an item in the rocket.
I am sure VCs are fighting to invest and they will get 4B investment immediately with this team
If you threaten to leave the UK, sure go ahead, your market will be filled quickly. Same for Palantir.
* if fully automated agentic delivery was pushed by C-levels to save eng cost - they must be responsible
* if code was written with AI assisted tools, then engineer is responsible
* if engineering manager and PMs pushed hard to release the feature with cutting too much scope, then they should be responsible.
BUT we don't live in ideal world, so here is what would happen (timeline):
* incident started, and getting too costly
* CTO, then eventually CEO joins the incident meeting and starts teaching people how to handle incidents
* incident will cost some money (or multiple of them), post mortem will contain non-sense to hide issues, because they can't blame C-level for pushing their shiny automated JIRA ticket closer agent
* CEO announces layoffs, says sorry, takes all the responsibility for this issue, but kicks off 40% of the team
* We are hiring...
Yeah sure, have you been in incidents costing millions of dollars because CEO pushed something to deliver fast and same CEO sitting on incident meeting and shouting to everyone why can't they fix this dumb incident?
But it might be not good for human brains, because we trained our brains with these problems and our brain optimized search space in some ways, and yes, we also couldn't solve some these problems.
Now imagine someone gets stuck with a problem which could become its own theory, but they will solve it with LLMs and move on to solve their primary problem, because they don't realize how other problem was a big deal. If theory is not formalized, then it won't contribute to the search space for other person, solving different problem.
All in all:
* people's brain will be shaped differently
* we will lose search space optimizations in our brains
* we lose new theory contributions, which increases the search space to help solve other problems
Kimi K3, GLM 5.2 and now Qwen3.8-Max - open weight models.
DeepSeek V4 Flash outperforming Gemini 3.1 pro, probably DeepSeek V4 Pro update is also coming soon
Chinese labs are cooking very hard. US closed weight labs are probably hard time to resist not calling Washington DC for more AI regulations
My basic understanding was to verify high level abstractions (e.g. transport ACK, fsyncs and so on), but verifying this deep probably requires complete verification of stdlib methods used by Postgres, otherwise how can you pinpoint culprit is the sscanf?
1. Your life belongs to them
2. You must prioritize company over everything (according to their wishes), for exchange of 0.000001% of company shares which can get diluted anytime
3. New Chief Marketing decides to rebrand and your tattoo and part of your body belongs to trash history (who knows maybe they will require you to get new tattoo)
I understand each commit might have different size, but I am guessing your commits == Pull Request (because you need this constant merge queue to rebase, merge, test) and each are around 40-80 lines of code (additions and removals), and you are probably not reviewing the code because at this rate even if one commit takes 2 minutes to review we are talking about 3 hours of non stop code review.
if you are not reviewing each code, probably your commits are small items and 10-20 of them are a part of single PR, then how do you sustain working across multiple projects?
I am not sure about this anymore, for some time I got an impression that Israel became the capital of USA.
> but you're linking primarily to a page about Israeli strikes.
Because you said AI will reduce civilian casualties, I gave you opposite fact. And relevant to the discussion, Dario complained about China being immoral, but didn't say anything against Israel, what message does it give to us? - Dario doesn't care about human rights, he is concerned about himself and how Chinese open AI can impact his company.
> the US under multiple administrations had criticized and warned Israel to be more disciplined
Who cares about criticism with no action, when they literally handing over them bombs:
here is your bomb which can blow up whole building, but please don't use it against buildings with civilians, oops, did you blow up civilians? Is your arsenal depleted? Okay take these bombs, but don't use against civilians, ooops again? Okay take all these bombs
Are you sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
They even have the cool one: "Where's Daddy?" - which tracks the suspect and then notifies the officials when suspect is at home, so IDF can bomb the whole building.
In this case AI is specifically designed to increase the civilian casualties, why not shoot the suspect independently, why include their neighbours, imagine your neighbour in 10 floor apartment building is a terrorist and your building gets bombed because of single person
In your argument have you considered: selling a knife knowingly to gang members just before they are going to another area to kill other gang members
Anthropic did same when it agreed to sell it's tool to DoW. There is no mistake, no misunderstanding of intentions.
He was super clear that he doesn't give a dime to any lives outside of USA, inside USA he was concerned about automatic weapon usage and surveillance of US citizens, because he himself could be accidentally killed, he doesn't care about others.
Also the point is, you (Dario) can't claim morality, when he is fine doing business with entities literally bombing and killing human beings in other countries.
You are either fine with it and continue working - which Dario is doing
Or you say, I will not work with you.
For Dario, main thing is money, everything else in his article is bs
> All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing
Why? And how do you design those tests?
For example, bombing girls school in Iran - is this allowed use according to you or not?
If not allowed use, then how do you guarantee that you don't have a separate agreement with DoW which makes it allowed use and only your model passes it?
Authoritarian government doesn't always mean bad - look at Singapore
What's more dangerous is country with bunch of war mongering lobbyists who can also influence elections (oops, sounds like USA)
> My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks
But you are working with DoW and Palantir, who is doing somewhat similar in other countries
> We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China
Israel used banned weapons against Lebanon and Palestinians, would you support similar ban to Israelis?
> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations
Should we also ban distilling public knowledge? Like using textbooks to train the model? Should rules be simple: train your model only on the data you have produced by hand?
No, because both can be banned using laws and Dario is against banning. It doesn't matter if you smuggle or not, law can outright ban it.
this is also good for documenting and tracing arguments and facts.
Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding?
Let them publicly say whatever they're preaching to politicians, and instead of 'funding' politicians directly, let them just teach everyone all at once.
I would love to hear what AIPAC teaches politicians