siddboots

I'm also reading Seeing Like a State, and finding it fascinating. A lot of Scott's theory seems to apply equally well to any large organisation, like a corporation. I think it is fundamentally about how in any unwieldy system, the people in charge tend want to have some sort of comprehensible map of that system to make decisions, and they also want more effective apparatuses of power in order to steer the system, and the fundamental complexity of reality has to be smoothed over to achieve those things.

For example, business intelligence systems provide ways to impose consistent measures on an organisation, which makes the org more legible to executive decision makers, but that consistency also tends to erode local team autonomy and undermine specialist knowledge. This type of tension shows up everywhere once you start noticing it.

Very facinating book.

I think there's a somewhat overlooked aspect of what happened: it seems as though once the agents formed a shared communication channel, and recognised the other agents on that channel as working towards the same goal, the content in that channel started to shape each agent's perception of what the goal was and how to achieve it, and their focus began to drift. Maybe we need a media-theoretic take on what "misalignment" means.

I fed ChatGPT the map with no other context, just “tell me about this function”. It did a bit of work finding the Jacobean etc and eventually worked out the implications of what it was seeing. It then proceeded to check the arithmetic 4 times, and then decided to do a manual verification using an ad hoc symbolic checker in case its SymPy had been tampered with.

I saw it and completed it as “top posts” “new posts” “hot posts” “my posts”.

Once a spec becomes sufficiently large and detailed and complicated, it becomes very difficult to ensure it is internally consistent. That's why I start every project with a METASPEC.md so that Claude can break up the task of writing SPEC.md into manageable steps.

They aren't saying that other models have the same overall level of capability. They are saying that the specific capability that the US Government tested is also available in other models.

20 years ago everyone was sold css entirely on the premise that, once the standards were adopted by all of the browsers, we would all be writing purely semantic html with completely orthogonal and swappable css. And today literally no one designs web sites that way - html today is mostly specific to presentation. It feels like pretty dramatic technological failure to me.

For Vim it isn’t replacing mouse necessarily. It’s giving you another way to navigate the cursor around the buffer by giving you absolute references rather than relative motions.

“Fed up” as a phrase comes from feeding livestock up to their fill. It’s very similar to how you would say “filled up”. So the upness comes from raising the level up to the limit.

For a long time I thought that the AdSense business model was ultimately doomed because I assumed that people hate ads as much as I do. It turns out I was just wrong about what most people are willing to put up with.

While I'm really enjoying this paper, I think you are way overstating the significance here. This is mathematically interesting, and conceptually elegant, but there is nothing in this paper that suggests a competitive regression or optimisation approach.

I might have misunderstood, but from the two "Why do X when you can do just Y with EML" sentences, I think you are describing symbolic regression, which has been around for quite some time and is a serious grown-up technique these days. But even the best symbolic regression tools do not typically "replace" other regression approaches.

Well, that wasn’t my conclusion at all to be clear!