TideAd

GPT-5 codex variants with xhigh reasoning make great code reviewers.

This would be a great problem to have. Most scenes don't have enough event hosts.

What they're really saying is, "we make an effort to hire smart/effective people, as opposed to the places that don't and as a result have a soul-crushing mediocrity culture".

Places that actually hire people that approximate "the best" are known by reputation, and don't have to say that.

Realistically, lots of parts of capitalism never sleep, and having outages at night still costs lots of money, astronomical amounts if there was no one there to fix it.

The authors are basically asking the alignment problem to be well-defined and easy to model. I sympathize. Unfortunately the alignment problem is famously difficult to conceptualize in its entirety. It's like 20 different difficult counterintuitive subproblems, and the combined weight of all the subproblems that makes up the risk. Of course probabilities are all over place. It'll remain tricky to model right up until we make a superintelligence, and if we don't get that right then it'll be way too late for government policy help.

So, this is actually an aspect of superintelligence that makes it way more dangerous than most people think. That we have no way to know if any given alignment technique works for the N+1 generation of AIs.

It cuts down our ability to react, whenever the first superintelligence is created, if we can only start solving the problem after it's already created.

Yes, they see it as the top problem, by a large margin.

If you do a lot of research about the alignment problem you will see why they think that. In short it's "extremely high destructive power" + "requires us to solve 20+ difficult problems or the first superintelligence will wreck us"

From everything I've heard it's less "not cool" and more "not valued by the Google promotion and advancement system".

> "I don't think it's crazy to believe that half the white-collar staff at Google probably does no real work," he said. "The company has spent billions and billions of dollars per year on projects that go nowhere for over a decade, and all that money could have been returned to shareholders who have retirement accounts."

So, he doesn't really understand Google's dysfunction and is just guessing at the causes?

Once your number as high as $5.6m, is that even plausibly within the scope of early retirement?

I feel like a lot of the value of getting a specific number is getting spooked by it! And then facing some real choices. Is it really worth N years of my working life to [live in the most expensive city in America] / [buy a large home] / [pay for 4 years of expensive American universities]?

And this isn't even touching on stuff tech people often want that OP doesn't (private schools / resort vacations / expensive winter sports).

I find this very strange, Microsoft has a lot of big internal high-performance services written in C#.

You have to be intentional about some things - largely making sure objects are very short-lived or very long-lived, to avoid long GX pauses. But .NET performs much better than it did 10-15 years ago and I can't think of a fundamental reason why you'd rewrite in Rust.

Ask ChatGPT. Literally ask it to explain how to do something, and explain it a different way if that doesn't work.

Not sure what my advice would be before 2022 but this supercedes it.

Lots of Azure stuff is like that. Some big services internally at Microsoft refused to use their Service Fabric product, it couldn't handle the scale & complex deployment needs.

After many years of learning this lesson over and over again, that much my subconscious works on problems, I've finally learned to trust myself to step away when I feel like I'm grinding.