phaedrus

This is timely for me, since a web forum I care about went offline, and I simultaneously discovered the Wayback Machine for whatever reason never crawled most of it. I asked Claude to try to put together a static site of what could be salvaged from various archives and other sources, but as miraculous as what AI can do these days, it can't restore data that is truly gone - so what it was able to salvage is better than nothing but still missing a lot.

There was this persistent meme in bodybuilding discussions - I don't know if it's still a thing - to say about steroids "well they're just a shortcut". The justification that it just got you faster to where you could have gotten slower naturally was used by former steroid users to justify themselves, as an accusation of cheating, as an accusation of laziness, and as hope for dreamers who go to the gym but do not see those extreme results. In reality, steroids do allow some to achieve a body that would not be possible under a natural/genetic with any amount of time due to how anabolism and catabolism balance and scale.

I think there's a lot of parallel with experienced programmers using LLMs and that idea about steroids that it just gets you there faster. I'm pretty sure I could eventually program most of the things I've used AI to write, and what it produces at the top end I/you can't really prove that I wouldn't have thought of it. But is that really true?

Someone should make a parody site asking whether shades of yellow are red or violet.

If we had super-smart AI with low latency and fast enough speed, would the perceived need for / usefulness of running multiple agents evaporate? Sure you might want to start working on the prompt or user story for something else while the agent is working on the first thing, but - in my thought experiment here there wouldn't be a "while" because it'd already be done while you're moving your hand off the enter key.

Mindstorms and the original RCX were a huge part of my college memories; I had a professor who used them for one of our classes. I built a substantially large "dragon" robot where the head + neck were actually a robot arm that could grip things, and it moved on treads. It took three RCX's "networked" together to get enough inputs and outputs for all the motors and functions. I accomplished the 3-way communication by making a parabolic reflector for the IR out of white cardstock; the three RCX's sat side by side and all aimed at the same reflector. The one in the middle controlled the outer two; each knew to only reply based on the first part of the message, so there was no contention.

I left that model with university which they kept as a display; I felt a little guilty having used up most of three Mindstorms sets for my project. Later I bought my own Mindstorms set, and then one of my then-wife's coworkers - whom we didn't know, and I don't know how she knew of me - randomly gave her a 2nd Mindstorms set to give to me. I keep meaning to re-create this dragon robot someday, leaner so it only takes two RCX. I have a lighter design now for the gripper + wrist section which, like the rocket equation, would allow the whole rest to be smaller if the last stage is smaller.

I once attended a talk by someone who is or was big in the node.js world. He opened with the premise, "a static type check is just a stand-in for a unit test."

I wanted to throw a shoe at him. A static type check doesn't stand in for "a" unit test; static typing stands in for an unbounded number of unit tests.

Put another way, this common misconception by users of languages like Javascript and Python that unit testing is just as good as type checking (plus more flexible) is a confusion between the "exists" and "for all" logical operators.

When I was trying to improve compile time for my game engine, I ended up using compiled size as a proxy measure. Although it is an imperfect correlation, the fact that compiled size is deterministic across build runs and even across builds on different machines makes it easier to work with than wall clock time.

This framework is a good example of something I call, "there's plenty of room in the middle." (In analogy to Feynman's "plenty of room at the bottom" about nanotechnology.)

Much like how Cosmic Inflation in the early universe left the imprint of microwave background radiation written exponentially large across the sky, I believe the exponential expansion of computing during the era of Moore's law left whole sections of scale in software not-fully-explored.

Specifically, as "average app sizes" went from 1K - 10K - 100K - 1M - 10M - 100M+, you could imagine the 1K-10K got fully explored because the space wasn't that big to begin with, and the 1M - 10M range got, if not explored at least inhabited, but it could be that that middle range of "neat applications that weigh in ~100K+ but less than 1M" didn't get completely explored because we didn't spend enough time in that era of computing.

A similar thing may be playing out in AI scaling, where we went from tiny to medium to huge model sizes, but now some new participants are going back and doing neat things with medium sized models.

I want so much to be in the business of selling my own traditional downloadable software, that I've thought about (in the absence of an idea) just putting together a do-nothing application with payment, installer, configuration dialogs, bug feedback - everything but a raison d'etre.

The irony is in my day job I am developing a traditional downloadable Windows application which will come with an immediate user base. But although I have considerable discretion over the project, it isn't mine (in an intellectual property sense), and I'm not getting rich off it.

Four companies. The doctor's office which may be controlled by profit-optimizing administration, the big profit pharma corporation, the for-profit medical insurance company, and the company the insured works for who picks the available insurance plan(s).

Not every case of reflux is caused by the same things. Some people's esophageal sphincter (such as mine does) just... decides to let go at random times. For me, that I can tell, the frequency of that happening isn't really affected +/- by the PH of my stomach acid, but the PH sure has an effect on the consequences.

I am assuming the best thing I can do for it is lose weight, but that's easier said than done.

50K context is an interesting number because I think there's a lot to explore with software within an order of magnitude that size. With apologies to Richard Feynman, I call it, "There's plenty of room in the middle." My idea there is the rapid expansion of computing power during the reign of Moore's law left the design space of "medium sized" programs under-explored. These would be programs in the range of 100's of kilobytes to low megabytes.

But the G in AGI stands for General. I think the hope is that there is some as-yet-undiscovered algorithm for general intelligence. While I agree that deferring to a subsystem that is an expert in that type of problem is the best way to handle problems, I would hope that it is possible that that central coordinator not just be able to delegate but design new subsystems as needed. Otherwise what happens when you run out of types of expert problem solvers to use (and still haven't solved the problem well)?

One might argue maybe a mixture of experts is just the best that can be done - and that it's unlikely the AGI be able to design new experts itself. However where do the limited existing expert problem solvers come from? Well - we invented them. Human intelligences. So to argue that an AGI could NOT come up with its own novel expert problem solvers implies there is something ineffable about human general intelligence that can't be replicated by machine intelligence (which I don't agree with).

It's not hearsay; I have a few engineer coworkers whose original job and training wasn't in tower climbing who now climb a couple times a year as installations require. I have seen their Powerpoint presentations, with pictures. Two of them are older and experienced in RF/telecom, but I have one younger coworker who went to a site and was asked to climb a tower and just - did it.

One older coworker is quite enthusiastic about it (as a mechanical engineer, he designed some of the custom rigging), so perhaps this is a case where he does it because he wants to & demonstrated aptitude so they let him. He actually decided to on his own to stop when a recent near miss made him question "why the hell" he isn't leaving this to professional riggers.

I don't know how/why my younger engineer coworker ended up doing it. Both her parents are in this same field and I know she feels a lot of pressure to excel and not say no to things. And when we come out to help a site there's a lot of pressure to restore service. So she may have agreed or even volunteered but not for the right reasons.

It may though be a case where no one thought to mention to me that this isn't a required thing, that some are doing it because they want to, etc. My coworkers aren't always good at realizing what new employees don't know, and I'm not good at picking up nuance.

But I definitely was "voluntold" to go out to a site and cut cables, which is a specialty technique I'm not properly trained in and would've taken place outside in the elements. (Did I mention I'm a programmer, a profession I chose in part because it takes place indoors? I also have undiagnosed/self-diagnosed dyspraxia; it would have been a disaster.) Thankfully the trip got canceled for other reasons, but my point is I wasn't asked; I was just told we need to send someone so you're going.