igregoryca

I usually listen to what doctors have to say, and trust their judgment. Especially since I have next to no formal education in bio or medicine.

I did resort to "self-diagnosis" once, though: for R-CPD (no-burp syndrome). Most doctors simply don't know this condition exists. I brought it up with my GP (whose referral I needed to see a specialist in Ontario), prepared for some pushback, but was pleasantly surprised that he did some brief research and then helped me forward.

Then again, I may have been lucky. I still hear stories of doctors who are less than cooperative when patients bring them "self-diagnoses", even for something as open-and-shut as R-CPD. But if most of those "diagnoses" are BS, then I can empathize with the docs, too.

Head to either side of the street. (one or the other); Plant trees on either side of the street. (both)

It's yet to be found. (not found); Yet it's found. (found)

They're all but forgotten. (nearly); They're known but to God. (only)

This resonates, but also, I'm not convinced anyone can truly understand the workings of any society, or market economy, or what have you.

Who's in control? Everyone is, to some extent. And no one is: when you're hungry for food, are "you" in control of that? You can consciously repress your impulses to go eat something, but your mind didn't create those impulses.

Human societies develop impulses and minds of their own, emerging (weakly) from the impulses and minds that comprise them, and they make decisions in mysterious ways.

Of course, it sure is nice when we can come up with a compelling story for the motivations behind something. Easier said than done…

As someone not super familiar with bankruptcy procedure: why do they auction off exclusive access to the data? Couldn't they make more money by, say, taking the top N offers, where N is "small" (e.g., ≤5)? Or does that depress the price too much?

That's what thinking output is for, right? Mixing random tokens that live roughly in the same semantic realm, throwing them at the wall, and seeing what sticks? Hopefully, this backticks concern didn't stick.

Could've been as simple as installing and configuring some off-the-shelf "analytics" and "cookie banner" plugins for their content management system. Unfortunately, the chain of incompetence is that long, because these orgs do not attract talent that understands these things.

At least for Claude Code, putting "run /simplify at the end" in an "implement the plan" skill helps a little. It still often leaves new code in bizarre places, and/or with bad/alien-sounding names and comments.

Sloppy, non-privacy-preserving "analytics" set up by some communications intern ≠ malice. They can mean well and still do a poor job. True privacy on the internet is notoriously hard.

I suspect many competent devs in the industry would find it sensible if Anthropic used their products as light-touch "assistants" sometimes. But yeah, it wouldn't fit the outside narrative that's formed and conveniently propped up valuations.

It seems "Mythos is really good at finding vulnerabilities" has been what people took away from the Project Glassing announcement, which makes sense. Unfortunately for Anthropic, most seem to have forgotten the best argument Anthropic had for holding Mythos back from the general public, "it's crazy good at crafting exploits". Then, without that context, the tinfoil hats came out.

I know this is a tangent, but

> Introduce and enforce structs for passing context and input shapes around. So as to stop fighting with NULLs, lack of keys in maps and other maddening cases that inflate your coding lines for no other reason than programming languages not having higher-order constructs on well-researched and mostly resolved computer science problems

Amen to that.

Some type theory, some abstract algebra...

Communication skills, teamwork skills...

How to cook better, maintain relationships better, keep a tidier space...

Not perfect! But time well spent.

Once upon a time, I thought I wanted to learn cursive handwriting. Except this version of me was already in his 20s, would be out of school in a matter of months, and quickly realized the skill would be of such marginal utility in the future that it wasn't worth the hours spent tracing out giant letters like a kindergartener every day.

One could learn this skill in their 20s or beyond, but there's an opportunity cost – why not something else that would actually improve work performance, or that you enjoy doing?

I still wish I'd been taught in elementary school, though, because it would've been really useful as a student. Some of our teachers discreetly handed out practice booklets to students who'd "expressed interest" (their parents taught them the basics and teacher noticed); most of us were not so lucky.

Does "applying knowledge" necessitate human-like intentionality and theory of mind? If you insist it does, and this is a category error, then we need a new category.

By analogy, consider that many have referred to classical, deterministic computing as some kind of "thinking" for the last half century+. Does this stop being kosher when the computer has an uncanny propensity for human language? Perhaps, but the computer is still clearly chewing through problems that would have required a lot of human thinking (e.g., arithmetic) in ages past.

I haven't seen any genuine proposals for words to replace the human mind analogues, let alone proposals that the anglosphere would plausibly adopt en masse.