amenhotep

It makes poor writing look superficially more considered. More readable, no, not when you realise.

That's pathetic.

No, it really doesn't read fine. None of this shit reads fine.

I got a poor first impression from the readme - it looks exactly the same as every other project vibe coded over a couple of weeks and I immediately assumed that's all it was.

One of the other comments mentioned a video from 12 years ago (pedigree!) so I went and had another look, finding the old readme from 2023. That one was incomparably better! Much more informative about the game, much more interesting, shows why you wanted it to exist and persuades me also that it should exist. It has its own little signal programming system, that's so cool!

We all know how powerful agentic development is these days and it's clearly enabled you to make massive strides on the project but please my god do not let them communicate to the outside world about your project. They do not know what they should say. They do not know how to say it. They will write the exact same thing they would for any other project and that's the worst possible way to put yourself across because you're unique.

Yes, of course, that's literally the definition

They obviously want to be able to invade Taiwan, yes, nobody serious would assert that they're developing amphibious capacity for self defence.

That's not the same thing as planning to invade in 2027, though. Militaries can need a capability without an imminent specific plan to actually use it. See the US's amphibious capacity. See nukes.

This really doesn't make it better.

It would certainly make it less baffling how many people seem to insist they're not aware that they exist when Star Trek transporters etc come up.

I'm on my phone so maybe I missed something but I didn't even see that this was about exceptions to the rule? It seemed to be more about cases where the first sound couldn't be recovered orthographically. He special cased herb, for instance, because Americans inexplicably pronounce it "erb", or one and onerous because one is w and the other is on.

I can't think of a single true example to the real rule, it's an actually extraordinarily strong and simple rule as English goes.

I think you're probably right, but your counterexamples don't really refute the strongest reading of the thesis. The military establishment has always ultimately held the reins in Pakistan, so the dynamic of civilians avoiding threats by rewarding incompetence isn't there - the threat is present anyway and the rewarding isn't in their power. Afghanistan and Chechnya are confederations of tribal warlords, so of course the armed forces are controlled by competent fighters, it's almost a tautology. You need an example where there's a strong civilian central authority that controls the military effectively, and maintains a highly competent military, and isn't constantly troubled by the threat of coups.

I find it astonishing that people didn't turn off these memory systems the moment they were introduced. Half the point of these things is that I control exactly what information is introduced in each query.

Sometimes Claude randomly references my geolocation to show off and it's incredibly creepy.

Then perhaps this entire security model is less useful for normal people who have to exist in the world than it is for secret agents in movies. If you're carrying around the nuclear secrets on your phone then being able to irrecoverably lock it with a simple button combo when the enemies are about to capture you is great! No matter how many of your limbs they cut off you'll never be able to give up the secrets!

In the real world, though, the biggest threat is governments and the biggest interactions with them are planned ones at border security and they're perfectly happy to imprison you if you don't behave in the way they want, so it would really be nice to be able to smoothly and frictionlessly plan ahead for these foreseeable interactions by replacing sensitive data on the phone with uninteresting data that can be fully exposed when you're forced to unlock it, while being able to restore the real data later.

That's true, we don't want it to do that, we want it to kill these parasitic entities. Much like one doesn't swat a mosquito because one will truly miss the amount of blood she's taking.

LLMs self-evidently have no experience when not inferencing, seems like the most consequential difference to me. If we are next token predictors then we are next token predictors that are inferencing at every waking moment and arguably much of our sleeping moments too; when we train an LLM that can inference as much as we do and remain coherent then I'll be more worried about whether it might have experience.