Frustratingly, the actual code it ran and exact details of what it did weren’t visible to me in the ChatGPT UI. I see this lack of transparency is an anti-feature.
There's no excuse for software to be slow anymore. Projects like 𝚏𝚏𝚏 and 𝚝𝚊𝚔𝚞𝚖𝚒 leading with speed, compilers like 𝙿𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚢𝚃𝚂 and 𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚏𝚏𝚘𝚛 that can help us upgrade entire ecosystems to native, and 𝚐𝚙𝚞𝚒𝚡 pushing the GPU rendering speed frontier.
A clear risk discussed throughout this year is to cybersecurity: the models are becoming superhuman in their ability to break in and out of computer systems.
But if we crack down on all of them, we will deny them the opportunity to work in the “legitimate” economy and push them toward criminality. A full ban, then, may well make the problems worse.
I have said for many years now that the thing I'm worried about with the models is a Black Monday type scenario, where many algorithms work with each other and get us into weird basins of actions.
in a world beginning to turn away from oil, the United States has become the biggest force trying to insure we keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere.
And maybe you won't get to 100% coverage, but this is the old joke about Microsoft Office. "I only use 5%." Yeah, well, we all use a different 5%. Well, what if we all just build our own 5%? What if I just took the functionality that I need and just did that? That is a completely different challenge and one agents are incredibly capable of doing right now, today, and I've done it a lot of times over.
It seems pretty clear that the only thing data center opposition is doing is pushing data center construction to the (many) places in America that won't regulate energy or pollution. Weird thing to pat oneself on the back for.
Rather, the way that AI companies engage with communities-forcing NDAs, dangling billion-dollar promises, pushing environmental externalities far away from AI's wealthy user base-resembles a classic story about dark money in politics.
in Silicon Valley, there's a common mantra to move fast and break things. However, when you're dealing with atoms instead of bits, breaking things is not really okay. So, the thing you have to do is to move fast and ship safely.
I will say that the best evidence we have just says in reality don't be deficient. If you can reach that threshold of not being deficient or insufficient, maybe that's enough.
It was instead a very strongly held opinion that that you get to excellence by giving people a lot of agency and accountability. By pushing decisions as deep in the organization as possible, hiring great people who can be trusted to have good judgment and make good decisions.
This saturation can be seen more clearly for the GPT 5.6 Sol model, which also shows that increasing reasoning budgets can become uneconomical at some point.
Not having that cumbersome keypad eat up the space and pushing the mouse location further right is so convenient, it surpasses the 101/102-key version.
we are trying to encourage people to not spend all their time just like going through all the mathematical open problems physics problems and um just seeing pushing the models to their limits to see what they can prove or disprove.
When a parent is stressed, low on sleep, or otherwise depleted, they may be even more prone to reacting harshly to normal kid behavior and boundary-pushing.
And so his power base was fragile vis-a-vis untruth. And for him because of the specific shape of his power and then the specific way he handled his contradictions, that did hurt him.
The thing that I find interesting is that's not novel. This has been the thing we've always been trying to do forever. How do we get a junior engineer to ship code safely without breaking stuff? Right? How do we make patterns in the codebase? How do we make tests? Like it's it's all the old stuff that we've always wanted to do.
the strategy that we know how to play really well is to pick one temporary bad guy and then galvanize all their competitors to push something forward against them.
so many of the best practices that your lawyers, your bankers, whoever advisers you have, they're going to be pushing best practices on you that are younger than the trees in your local park.
That's why I don't think accelerationist steamrolling will work. The only way this conflict resolves peacefully is some kind of grand bargain: a flagship policy plan that directly addresses the public's top fears about AI and meaningfully redistributes the gains.
had we freeze time, that piece of code could be decomposed in a matter of 3 to 6 months. But it took us 2 years to do that because as we peel out a piece of code, the business keep on going forward, right?
There's a vampiric effect happening with AI where it gets you excited and you work really really hard and you're capturing a ton of value. For me, I'm doing it all for myself and it's still kind of like pushing me to my ragged edge.
This is, bar none, the best sled I have ever used for pushing or pulling. It isn't cheap, but I use it infinitely more than the cheaper sleds I've bought in the past.
Cursor… it’s tab completion model is industry leading, if you still write code yourself. I use VS Code mostly, I do like them pushing things like browser automation and plan mode tho.
As AI gets more capable, the risks associated with mistaken claims, fraudulent claims, or too-vague-to-be-verified claims will increase, and a cloud of suspicion between competitors could drive corner-cutting (indeed, this is happening already and could get worse).
A perfect sized companion (~100 pages) to understanding and trusting your intuition—breaking free from external validation and building courage through three core principles.
Either can work. Both have tradeoffs and implications. If you try to import either philosophy wholesale, it will break in unexpected ways; if you try to mix and match, it will probably be an unfettered nightmare.
For one thing, typical deposit accounts in the U.S. are actually credit products. It's baked in and can't be baked out without making them unfit for purpose.
The platforms have installed themselves in a position of power, but they are also vulnerable. They must do everything perfectly to maintain that position of power—not enrage their users too much, not push the regulators too far, not miss any of those competitors who are seeking to take a portion of that power.
In fact, there’s one that’s now pushing 6000 BCE. That’s thousands of years before the stuff in Egypt. And that one’s called Huaca Prieta. And it was not an Egyptian pyramid, but it was a pyramid and it was thousands of years before.
So that’s why I think this is a thing that I come back to over and over again, is that you will retain information better if you’re constantly pushing yourself to your limit. If you are feeling like you’re coasting, then you’re actually not learning
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.