troupo

> But Anthropic (and everyone around this debacle) in general: please put some real effort behind planned crisis communications. The reporting on this has been atrocious and the comms coming from Anthropic have not really helped.

Anthropic is incapable of communicating. They rely on random employees in random threads on random social media to do some kind of PR and posts. Regardless of the issue. Or even non-issues but features.

Ah. I should've said "other than shows where Aaron Sorkin was involved" :)

A very tangential/orthogonal/left field. It's insane that the only other TV series that managed to consistently pull of this fast pace of walking and talking is ... The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. At least that I can think of.

> It's a utopia, which is rare amongst sci-fi futures.

Some say it was the last sci-fi utopia in modern pop culture.

> increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."

"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.

> The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other.

Together they will have ~80% of the market.

A company with 60% market share gobbles up a company with 25% market share.

> The comparison you're making is utilitarian design versus functional design.

No. The comparison I'm making is non-functional design vs. functional design.

Modern "designers" wouldn't know functional design if it hit them in the face and couldn't design one if their life depended on it.

> Do I need to see a list of every single application on my computer (utilitarian) or do I need to see the applications I use the most and added most recently (functional)?

Again, you're completely missing the meat of my argument while focusing on superficial.

The meat is: why the hell our huge 5k monitors manage to show less information on screen than 600x400 14" monitors of 30 years ago?

Your answer is "but scaling". No, scaling doesn't solve the issue. At best in modern designs you will see 11 items instead of 10. Where there's space for 50.

I wasn't saying that Win95 start menu was perfect. I was saying: modern start menu manages to show less information, and more poorly[1], on an area that is 10x the size of the entire screen available to Win95. And that this issue is repeated through the entire design of the OS.

[1] not to say more slowly, but that is an additional can of worms

The problem isn't "make whole thing smaller". The problem is information density and controls. Windows wastes large areas of screen on huge white empty spaces, showing significantly less info in 100x more display area than win 95

The same libgen which is illegal in the US and whose sources include those obtained by Aaron Swarz? That libgen?

Because it's just slapping web-based Monaco editor on top of pi which is written in Typescript.

Because AI-generated README means that the person doesn't care about the audience. It means that the author never read the README themselves to see that the "load-bearing ground truths" actually reflect what the project is about, and not some hallucinated bullshit.

There's a famous Jobs story in which he insisted that even the insides of the computers be made beautiful. Because that shows care. Now people are arguing that even the outsides can be as ugly as they want, who cares.

> Replicating the brain functionality is magic?

LLMs do not replicate brain functionality.

> Or the brain itself is magic

The brain itself isn't magic

> An LLM with CoT is Turing-complete,

C++ is Turing complete. Hell, HTML+CSS is Turing complete.

> so there's no wall to its capabilities.

There are multiple well understood and well explained walls and limits to LLM capabilities. And none of those walls, or perceived lack of them, stem from something being Turing complete.

> There's no theorems that establish limits of reinforcement learning either.

There's a very obvious and immediate one: availability and size of training data. And compute. And time.

> There's no evidence of quantum computations in the brain.

What does quantum computation have to do with brains or LLMs?

> All you have is a strong belief.

Says the person who just listed a lot of beliefs in marketing bullshit.