1. Work for months on a major update of iOS & macOS app 2. Test, test, test 3. Submit to App Review a week before launch 4. Schedule a price increase 5. Get an in-app event approved 6. Have iOS app approved on the same day 7. Have macOS app go into review on the same day 8. Wait a day for macOS 9. Wait another day 10. Wait another day 11. Wait another day 12. Panic 13. Investigate how to unschedule price increase and abort in-app event Mac App Review is actively harmful to the app ecosystem.
in the future, uh, we would be very concerned about investigator agents and like monitor agents colluding with the agents they're supposed to investigate or monitor.
But keep those methods you use to investigate things and monitor things very separate from the methods you use to generate reward which is something that AI companies including open AAI have held up as a principle especially in the case of avoiding putting training pressure on the chain of thought. So you might have monitors that read the agents chain of thought in order to alert you if something is going wrong somewhere but you don't train the agents with the outputs of that monitor.
There is no reason NOT to have every single email you get routed through an agent / LLM / API to be scored and approved or rejected And then the approved emails ordered by importance It's crazy this isn't a feature of Gmail, Fastmail etc AI could permanently fix email!
I think one of the things that makes science the company very special is that it has both of those cultures and is able to integrate them and we're able to simultaneously do some really cool research that I think is really at the edge of the Overton window while simultaneously running clinical trials in six countries now with an approved medical device in Europe and clinical trial results in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Take Eroom’s Law: the number of new drugs approved per dollar of R&D has fallen for decades, even as our scientific tools have grown vastly more powerful, the exact opposite of what the existence of more raw capability would predict.
Which means we need to have a flexibility in the tools that we provide and the types of partnerships we have, and to really have a creator enablement view rather than a prescriptive that we only do this one way.
untrusted repos should be treated as hostile by default because they can steer the agent toward reading files, running commands, or sending data through approved tools.
for us design actually has always operated as like a bottleneck at the company, which is incredibly important, right? It's intentional that things need to be approved by design to ship.
And there are a whole bunch of people who are employed not always by the government just as much by the private sector who are much more interested in adherence to uh approved procedure than they are in quality of outcome.
And I would rather lose everything I have than yield to this pressure because, if you submit to this pressure and agree with something that is fundamentally wrong and violates rights of other people as well, you become broken inside, you become a shell of your former self on a deep biological and spiritual level.
But the Great Pyramid, to go to that length to create a tomb, to make it a scale model of the earth, to orient it perfectly to true north, to make it 6 million tons. This is not a tomb. This is something else. This is a curiosity device.
That makes it essential to ensure that all synthetic DNA orders are screened to determine whether they contain hazardous sequences, which should be shipped only to legitimate researchers whose work has been approved by a biosafety authority.
The Reading List email is sponsored by Hiya , the pediatrician-approved superpowered chewable vitamin created by two dads tired of children’s vitamins that cause more problems than they solve.
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.