brotchie

Global electricity provider revenue is $7T, so $6T for a whole new horizontal category of "thing" isn't unreasonable.

This is by far the most succinct, understandable, correct, description of the holographic principle. I don’t know all articles don’t just lead with this.

I'm going steal "slopped together", great quip.

Technology is stacked sigmoids. There's a lot more to unlock.

What's becoming more important in human's relationship with technology is restraint. Dopamine comes from the journey, not the destination, and for a journey to be meaningful, there needs to be some amount of challenge / struggle. The increasingly important skill to lead a fulfilled existence is learning how to optimally balance ease vs. challenge.

There’s still 50-500x cost reduction in “this is only an engineering problem” low hanging fruit from specialized chips to run the models + improved distillation.

Entirely feasible that by 2031, Fable 5 (or greater) intelligence level models will run cool on smart phones, if not sooner.

Yep, switched from CC to 5.6 Sol. Not using it in my day job (only side projects), but I can crank 5.6 Sol on Extra High "fast mode" and never have to worry about credits.

Not doing crazy multi agent swarms, but have yet to hit any limits during pretty intense weekend sessions.

The impact on the psyche on some Mathematicians of this AI progress must be pretty brutal. To me, it breaks the mystique of Mathematics a lot.

You still need a lot of skill to digest and understand the proofs, but "this is the worse it will ever be." I'd imagine part of the motivation of a large set of mathematicians is to be the "first" or to crack the nut that others couldn't. If Mathematics becomes working with an AI to get a Lean certificate, and then essentially reverse engineering that into something digestible, then it's fundamentally a different pursuit.

Software Engineering feels a little less impacted? Though if you identify with loving coding, then perhaps similarly? I've always liked the outcome of what writing code can do, and enjoyed the craft hand coding for the past ~30 years. But I haven't once ever missed writing code by hand since Opus 4.6, I couldn't go back.

Luckily never been bitten by component orientation issues. But every time I get a PCB assembled at JLCPCB with WS2812b or WS2816b LEDS they always email me to confirm LED orientation. I'm assuming customers have messed this up frequently enough to require a customer ACK.

If you just say “implement this” you’re going to have a bad time after a certain point.

You really need to add yourself as a human in loop to be in the middle of design choices. That is, ask the model for a plan, what the trade offs are, should parts of the code be refactored before the next feature, etc.

Also, there’s an element of reading the code and ordering refactors. I’ve noticed that for embedded code codex loves to to do everything in a main.c and too many compiler defines. Asking it to propose a refactoring into modules helps a lot.

It’s just like writing real code, if you don’t do design up front and don’t aggressively refactor as the requirements change, it becomes a mess.

I guess the orange sphincter is really a flower…

Text to SQL is the wrong framing of the problem.

Ideally you ask the agent the thing you want to know / business question you want answered.

An agentic loop then runs. The agent can look at the schema, look at any existing SQL scripts available that query similar tables, run a few limit 10 probe queries. Analyze the data, do some joins, check the data again. Show you the data, ask for feedback, etc.

Pure zero / one shot SQL generation isn’t the solution and isn’t how humans do things. We look at the schema, run some queries, do some joins, spot check the totals / row counts, etc.

GPT 5.6 already is an explainer agent.

Fork Tao’s convo and prompt this (with your own math level described).

GPT did a great job of translating Tao’s questions and concepts (e.g. “pre image”) into a progression I could understand.

“Ok I have a PhD in financial math and undergrad in engineering math. I have almost zero knowledge of polynomial algebra / geometry, I know what a polynomial is and what roots are but not much beyond that. Could you try and explain to my level what questions the user I the conversation has asked and what the agent has responded with, we can probably go user query by user query to build up”

My hand wavy math.

One person dedicated to a single project / task baseline 100% total output.

One person split between two tasks / projects that require context switching, 70% total output at best, perhaps 50% total output, a loss of 50%.

One person working on a single task that they’re passionate about / intrinsically motivated to complete: 150-500% output.

When you have one task / project to think about and focus on, it engages your brain: sleeping, showering, walking, your subconscious is processing.

Adding just one extra project / task that requires a context switch mostly kills this subconscious processing mechanism.

3000 RPM is 50Hz right?