While you might have access to the subculture, there is no obligation for anyone else to respond, collaborate or engage with random you. This is a common mistaken understanding about open-source software projects where users often believe they have "rights" to compel or coerce volunteer developers to listen or reply to them. Developers collaborating together isn't a conspiracy, it's just preferences getting played out. No, I don't want to collaborate with someone that I don't like.... duh?
It gets bad when the subculture inhabitants get confused and adopt the social norms of the passer bys instead of remembering the importance of well-kept gardens. And then they start to introduce "policy".. which is just a backdoor for attackers to destroy your well-kept garden by arguing policy (as if that was what the subculture was about!).
> While you might have access to the subculture, there is no obligation for anyone else to respond, collaborate or engage with random you.
true, but i think there's historically often been good-faith efforts to engage with newcomers in any field that requires intellectual or artistic curiosity or experimentation. what we're seeing played out is that this default good nature ignores the risk involved in growing a small garden beyond one's own property. there is a change in meta-social requirements at scale.
the extremes of this are super apparent in FOSS - one side of this being death-by-committee and overgovernance at the expense of the original project (requiring a support organization that outgrows the actual "work", for example, look at how many HNers view unions or internal policy committees), and the other side a harsh rejection of newcomers or calcification against new ideas at the expense of the long-term viability of a project. these issues can be imperceptible or not important in smaller projects.
but they're not limited to FOSS. i think these are probably fairly well-studied ideas in any form of organizations - business, social groups, churches, non-profits, unions, etc. i don't really know where to start to learn more about this or what the right approaches are (and i suspect they're often pretty unique to the group in question). i don't have an answer but i'm really interested in the huge grey area between fully-gatekept cultures and fully-open ones.
If I am relying on the model to do the writing without any context or learning on how I want it to write then yes. However if I build skills that have learnt how to write in the way I want them to then I find they write very well, or at the least how I want them to as opposed to how they do natively.
Yep. Same here. I frequently tell agents things like "answer using only a single sentence" and "write no more than 10 words". They are excellent at writing code, so have them write code (and not English prose). Besides, most of the time we want them to make reusable software that doesn't require users (or future agents) to read too much text. Software should generally just work and do the obvious thing, without needing verbose explanation.
As for "curing cancer", I suspect that Anthropic or OpenAI will use their high status/reputation to launder the existing solutions (germline, p53, enhanced DNA damage repair pathways, higher tumor-suppressor-to-oncogene copy number, more robust tumor-suppressor networks, more self-anti-cancer apoptosis, CD47 suppression, etc) that society has refused to accept. They might have enough reputation to get people to look at these ideas. It won't cure people with stage 5 turbo-cancer a.k.a the walking dead, but hopefully we won't be moving the goal posts _that_ much on them.
Ignoring the impracticality of trying to deploy this, codon bias exists for a reason, it's a translation-regulation mechanism and you'd wind up having to do a massive amount of protein engineering to not mess up everything.
Well, first, I would have to check and see if the synoynmous codons are important for virus reproduction. Second, this technique requires (AFAIK) lots of cell line viability testing and lots of tweaking. I don't think it's as simple as code swapping all the codons and then all the biology magically works the right way, biology is rarely that simple. Requires effort.
It depends on what you consider to be speculative. It's certainly not a product available to the mass consumer market, if that's what you mean. But that's also kind of an uninteresting fact, right?
Honestly, the most likely thing is lots and lots of dead fetuses due to developmental abnormalities. I'd be surprised if it ever got to the point of resulting in a dead infant.
Quality control and testing is absolutely essential, yeah. It's hard work and the plan shouldn't be misconstrued as "rewrite the whole genome of an embryo today and go for the first birth immediately" because that would be stupid when we know there is other work to be done. It shouldn't surprise ANYONE that making significant progress against cancer, aging, or other issues, would take lots of work and not doing the immediate obvious broken thing.
At this point, I'm basically telling models to not write any English text or prose. Only write code. They are great at writing code. Not so great at writing good English. In software projects, lengthy comments and docs are an anti-pattern: the software should instead be written to do the right expected thing so that you don't have to think about it. I don't want all these tokens polluting my context, either.
Agreed, think the first user rule I ever put into Cursor was "Don't write code comments unless absolutely necessary to explain something that couldn't just be inferred"
> Review what you just wrote, according to some appropriate list of evaluation criteria that you come up with first
I get better results from these models when I ask for the appropriate list of evaluation criteria with a fresh context. If you pollute the context with its first iteration, then you are likely to get a worse result when you ask it to come up with the criteria with the first version in the context. Context contamination can unintentionally narrow the expertise of the inquiry (even for meat humanoids).
It's unfortunate that Cerebras disabled new sign-ups for their coder plans. GLM-4.7 on Cerebras via OpenRouter used to be absolutely amazing...
I am very eager to see 15,000 tokens/second eventually, like Talaas but for higher intelligence models. I know a few people working on ASICs in this direction including open-source projects. It's all extremely exciting.
There's no reason that ultrasound imaging equipment needs to be expensive. Overall the parts are pretty cheap. I think everyone should have one next to their toothbrush. Whole body ultrasound scans would also be useful, although harder to place inside everyone's homes.
I'm not sure about others but I can't coherently voice my thoughts through speech alone as I'd want to think and revise the message, so I generally don't use voice transcription with AI.
That sounds more annoying than just typing it myself. I guess if you're on a walk you can just talk into your earbuds and the coding agent will parse everything automatically though.
reply