ledauphin

I think this is basically true, but there's a different way of saying this.

LLMs are not aligned _for_ humans in a very similar way to the way that humans themselves are not aligned _for_ humans.

We have not yet solved "alignment" for humans - I don't know why anyone thinks _we're_ going to be able to solve it for inhuman things.

because humans lie, cheat, and coordinate...?

do these automatically copy over git config and/or installed hooks?

I'm surprised the article doesn't address the Occam's Razor probability that... _most people_ hold ideas that the (a?) majority does not... and that increased media attention is likely to "discover" these beliefs.

Or rather, I see no attempt to make an argument that Nobel laureates are statistically _more_ likely than other "well-known" non-politicians to hold non-majoritarian ideas... nor any attempt to argue that the ideas followed rather than preceded the award.

nah this doesn't explain it.

most of the users of those third party harnesses care just as much about hitting cache and getting more usage.

this doesn't seem like it allows multiple writers?

can you elaborate on this? diversifying compute doesn't create more compute - is it that the different LLM vendors have different peak times and so spreading themselves over more compute vendors spreads peak load?

yes, what we need is for charities to operate on a quarterly reporting cycle, so that their administrative overhead increase, and (like public companies) they can be myopically focused on short-term performance.

I just don't buy this. It is not what I observe with these things. They are not at all "thoughtful".

have you gotten a terminal interface on your phone to be acceptably usable? I haven't - not without a real keyboard attached in any case. too many parts of the UX are designed for a true keyboard.

how is it different or better than maintaining an index page for your docs? Or a folder full of docs and giving Claude an instruction to `ls` the folder on startup?

this is likely in reference to the fact that dicts have maintained insertion order since Python ~3.6 as property of the language. Mathematically there's no defined order to a set, and a dict is really just a set in disguise, but it's very convenient for determinism to "add" this invariant to the language.

then this will get filed by every corporation against every lawsuit

this is often a sign that the design/solution you've chosen is an unfruitful path.

know when to cut your losses and try something different.

as an aside on Nimony aka Nim 3:

can somebody provide a reference explaining/demonstrating the ergonomics of ORC/ARC and in particular .cyclic? This is with a view toward imagining how developers who have never written anything in a non-garbage-collected language would adapt to Nimony.