It’s far from a perfect analogy but I would imagine that people were pretty hyped about the novelty of the first legitimately useful compiled programs where they didn’t have to allocate their own registers. I wonder how long it took for that novelty to wear off?

Or in other words I’d argue novelty is contextual and that these kinds of discoveries’ novelty will eventually wear off too but for right now it’s pretty cool that the “math discovery compiler” works well enough to do this (again imperfect analogy).

I’d be very curious to hear what an online restart approach for sketchy extensions crashing a shared thread per connection process might look like. This is more a question for the author of the project but I’m curious if they have plans in that direction.

systems, upstart or even simple primitive script wrapper.

Built-in is also possible: just fork once after start, and you have parent as watchdog and restarter.

I’m not very familiar with the specifics of pass through but IIUC only being able to map 1.5gb of active DMA buffers at a time is pretty limiting.

I feel similarly but IIUC I think that doesn’t strictly require an open source development model. I’ve benefited a huge amount from consuming and contributing to open source projects and I’m a bit worried that the “unit economics” changing might break some of the social dynamics upon which the ecosystem is built.

I read the Hyperion books during a particularly intense period of my life and found them quite powerful. I didn’t know anything about Simmons at the time, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that like Tolkein these stories started with an oral format for children.

My "intense time of life" story re: Hyperion. I was finishing "The Rise of Endymion" and was stricken with a kidney stone. It was absolutely eerie, and has cemented my memory of that book in a strange way.

Ohhhh yeah, same exact deal with me. Read the series during a wild moment in my life decades ago. Still my favorite sci-fi series to date

> any [] property can be [taken by the state] from its [original] owners simply by [those owners becoming more powerful than the state wants]

When rephrased like the above, I think what you’re describing is pretty common in history. Many industries and assets have been nationalized when it serves the state’s interests.

IMO the moral justification is that there is no ownership or private property except that which is sanctioned by the state (or someone state-like) applying violence in its defense. In this framing, there’s little moral justification for the state letting private actors accrue outsized power that harms consumers/citizens.

Brutal, but understandable and well-argued. Thank you.

People outsource the brutality (to the government), so that they don't need to deal with it in their daily life. If we couldn't force companies to act in ways we want through a formal system, then the world would look much more brutal.

or alternatively we can just stop using products/services of said companies

I can ban persons from doing things, I rather not have them do. Companies are legal persons, so why shouldn't this apply to them? At some point ignoring behaviour is not making it go away, it needs to be actively worked against, otherwise it will become (practically) mandatory.

Which is why the more serious consequences a law has the harder it is to change it and the more people need to sign off on it. There is stuff that needs simple majorities, stuff that is in the constitution and requires a super majority, stuff that can't be changed short of abolishing the current state and stuff that can't be changed at all, because it is just an assertion that is independently on anyone asserting it.

This is kind of a "solved*" thing in theory, not so much in practice of course.

*solved meaning we have a proper process established

I’m not sure I see that assumption in the statement above. The fact that no prompt or alignment work is a perfect safeguard doesn’t change who is responsible for the outcomes. LLMs can’t be held accountable, so it’s the human who deploys them towards a particular task who bears responsibility, including for things that the agent does that may disagree with the prompting. It’s part of the risk of using imperfect probabilistic systems.

FWIW I understood GP to mean that it suddenly makes sense to them, not that there’s been a sudden focus shift at google.

This has mostly been my experience as well although I don’t tend to run yolo mode outside of an isolated VM (I’m setting them up manually still, need to try vagrant for it). That said, it seems like some of the people who are more concerned about isolation are working with more untrusted inputs than I’ve been dealing with on my projects. It’s rare for me to ask an agent to e.g. read text from a random webpage that could bring its own prompt injection, but there are a lot of things one might ask an agent to do that risk exposure to “attack text”.

Anyone who finds this relatable (like me) might benefit from learning more about the last couple of decades of research on emotional regulation, trauma, and the nervous system. I have a great “trauma informed” therapist and over time this tendency of mine feels much less compulsive and more like a choice I can make because I know I’m good at something. At least for me having a calmer internal life has made it way easier to pick my battles and it usually means I end up feeding my desire to be useful on more satisfying and impactful things than I would have chased in more obsessive times in my life.