corbin

Your phrasing reminded me that he was one of the principal authors of lex back when he was a whelp.

This exchange on HN, from the Wordpress meltdown, is going to make an amazing exhibit in the upcoming trial:

Anonymous: Matt, I mean this sincerely: get yourself checked out. Do you have a carbon monoxide detector in your house? … Go to a 10 day silent retreat, or buy a ranch in Montana and host your own Burning Man…

Matt Mullenweg: Thanks, I carry a co2 and carbon monoxide monitor. … I do own a place in Montana, and I meditate several times a day.

Yeah, it’s a real thing that happens when programming robots. Kinematics is more difficult than route planning, for example.

I think it might be worth reflecting on exactly why Fountain seems to “get weird;” it had a context and complaints about it are part of that context. I liked this recent video which explores the politics of Fountain.

Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn’t have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.

Hallucinations — which occur when models authoritatively states something that isn’t true (or in the case of an image or a video makes something that looks…wrong) — are impossible to resolve without new branches of mathematics…

Finally, honesty. I appreciate that the author understands this, even if they might not have the exact knowledge required to substantiate it. For what it’s worth, the situation is more dire than this; we can’t even describe the new directions required. My fictional-universe theory (FU theory) shows that a knowledge base cannot know whether its facts are describing the real world or a fictional world which has lots in common with the real world. (Humans don’t want to think about this, because of the implication.)

I hear you. You’re largely right, and I think it’s a perspective shift.

… explain the implications.

I need to write a longer post about the justification (basically, what is a moat anyway?) but without a moat, a computation vendor can’t profit from their capital investment. This kills the OpenAI.

Fully agreed, but also I was doing multicloud in 2017. Managed k8s is not just a meme; I was able to use the same YAML on four different providers (Azure, Bluemix, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud) to get my N+2. Indeed, YMMV.

Note that he uses the same strategy as Joe Rogan: invite a smart person on, ask them introductory questions about their research, and then just kind of sit there with a dumb look and fail to understand what they’re saying. I gather that it’s easy to empathize with and doesn’t require listeners to actually learn much since they’re essentially sitting in a 101 course with a professor who is reading the curriculum aloud. What puzzles me is why MIT funds this shit.

To be clear: Cohost did take funding from an anonymous angel, and as a result will not be sharing their source code; quoting from your link:

Majority control of the cohost source code will be transferred to the person who funded the majority of our operations, as per the terms of the funding documents we signed with them; Colin and I will retain small stakes so we have some input on what happens to it, at their request.

We are unable to make cohost open source. the source code for cohost was the collateral used for the loan from our funder.

Somebody paid a very small amount of money to get a cleanroom implementation of Tumblr and did not mind that they would have to build a community and then burn it to the ground in the process. It turns out that angels are not better people than VCs.