The general word on the street is you should use a reasoning model for debugging (actually, people tend to prefer using models like Grok 3 or DeepSeek-R1 for this sort of problem). Personally, when I do AI coding, I am still maintaining a pretty detailed mental model of how the code is supposed to work, so I think it’s pretty reasonable to also try to root cause it yourself (you don’t have to fix it, if you tell the model what’s wrong it will usually do the right thing).

Help the model do the right thing: make sure there documentation it can reference, and make sure the model can find it (e.g., via prompting, or just putting it where the model expects it to be). Avoid asking for major changes (where misalignment on the actual goal is more likely to be harmful) without contextualizing how it should fit together with the project as a whole.

The eternal debate between dynamic and static type systems concerns the tradeoff between ease of prototyping and long term maintainability. The rise of LLMs greatly reduces the pressure to choose a language that is good at prototyping, since the LLM can cover up for boilerplate and refactors. Choose accordingly. You will want an agent setup where the LLM is informed about type errors after changes they make, so they can easily tell what other files they need to update when doing refactors. Be careful about your token costs.Unfortunately, the training corpus highly emphasizes Python and JavaScript. Their typed offerings are workable, but as both are gradual type systems you will need to carefully setup the typechecker settings to be strict (or carefully prompt your LLM to setup the settings properly).In principle, Rust should be a good target language for LLMs. However, LLMs are not as good at generating Rust as they are for Python/JavaScript.

The Walking Skeleton is the minimum, crappy implementation of an end-to-end system that has all of the pieces you need. The point is to get the end-to-end system working first, and only then start improving the various pieces.

Ideally, an agentic model would know to do a web search and find the docs it needs. However, Sonnet does not currently support web search, so you have to manually feed it documentation pages as needed.

Do not make files that are too large, if your RAG system for feeding code context can only operate on a per-file level, you will blow out your context;

Often, your problem space is constrained enough that once you write down all of the requirements, the solution is uniquely determined; without the requirements, it’s easy to devolve into a haze of arguing over particular solutions.

Look for opportunity in places where previously people had written off a problem as “too much work”. Make sure you inspect what the LLM is actually doing though, because it will happily keep doing the same thing over and over, unlike a human who would get bored and look for a better way.

Preparatory Refactoring says that you should first refactor to make a change easy, and then make the change. The refactor change can be quite involved, but because it is semantics preserving, it is easier to evaluate than the change itself.Current LLMs, without a plan that says they should refactor first, don’t decompose changes in this way.

Black box testing says that you should test the functionality of a component without knowing its internal structure. By default, LLMs have difficulty abiding with this, because by default the implementation file will be put into the context, or the agent will have been tuned to pull up the implementation to understand how to interface with it.

Usually, it is best to avoid getting into this situation in the first place. For example, it’s very popular to come up with a plan with a reasoning model to feed to the coding model. The planning phase can avoid asking the coding model to do something that is ill advised without further preparation.

He coded divine truths in a language that our idolatrous culture could comprehend. Warhol may not have been a paragon of sanctity, but his work was receptive to divine grace.

Warhol, unlike Baudrillard, was not a nihilist. He believed in a transcendent deity who would turn bread and wine into his own body and blood. Surely that same God could also bestow some sacramental value on mundane realities like a soup can, a Brillo pad, a banana, and a gunshot wound. His works that juxtapose product packaging with religious imagery are tinged with the awareness that Christ’s love can redeem both human weakness and the banality of the everyday (see Last Supper/Be Somebody With a Body, The Last Supper (Dove), and Raphael Madonna-$6.99).

Similarly, the subject of Warhol’s Catholic faith has fed the debate about where to draw the line between sincere and performative belief.

Remember those bullet points for sending emails? One day we'll just send bullet points as emails. We'll reach business speak protocol version 2.0. That which was verbose becomes terse. No more time wasted translating thoughts and injecting platitudes.

During the Industrial Revolution, craftspeople faced a similar crisis. Their traditional skills - honed over generations - were being replaced by machines. But what happened next is fascinating: many adapted, becoming specialist professionals who could fix and improve these same machines that threatened to replace them. Others found ways to apply their deep understanding of materials and processes to improve overall factory operations. If we draw this parallel to our AI era, a similar path emerges.

But here’s what no one’s talking about: the identity crisis. That deep sense of loss when you realise you’re no longer building things with your own hands. When your technical mastery becomes less relevant than your ability to “manage” the tools. When your craft becomes oversight.

Requirements, design, testing, operations - these were all supposedly part of our craft. Yet the industry pushed us in the opposite direction. We handed these responsibilities to specialists - Product Owners, Architects, Quality Engineers, Platform Engineers - while we doubled down on our coding expertise.

“The Latest Decalogue” Thou shalt have one God only; who Would be at the expense of two? No graven images may be Worshipped, except the currency; Swear not at all; for, for thy curse Thine enemy is none the worse: At church on Sunday to attend Will serve to keep the world thy friend: Honour thy parents; that is, all From whom advancement may befall; Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive Officiously to keep alive: Do not adultery commit; Advantage rarely comes of it: Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, When it’s so lucrative to cheat: Bear not false witness; let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly. Thou shalt not covet, but tradition Approves all forms of competition. — Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)

AI is useful if you already know what you're doing. I've watched Jhey work through mathematical problems to help him with code and the difference is, he knows when the output that AI is giving him doesn't make sense or is wrong. The same goes for one of my friends back in Washington state, who has been using ChatGPT to help him speed up his work. They have the background and the foundation to prevent them from committing AI slop code.

During the initial assessment use the getTablesAndInstanceInfo, getPerfromanceAndVacuumSettings, and getPostgresExtensions tools. When asked to run a playbook, use the getPlaybook tool to get the playbook contents. Then use the contents of the playbook as an action plan. Execute the plan step by step.

And yeah fine, maybe a definition is helpful to reach a shared understanding. We could be talking about many things, but here's the one we're actually talking about. Let's get on the same page. Maybe a definition can help with that. It's a useful tool for that – but it's not the best one, generally people understand things better with some examples and some context.

The print depicts medieval " killer rabbits" is a unique and intriguing piece of art. It portrays a historical scene where rabbits are shown in an unusual role.

Most famous unicorn tapestry cycles known as The Hunt of the Unicorn The unicorn was seen as a symbol of Christ and was frequently shown in Medieval art.

A critic on Bluesky pointed out that entrepreneurs like Altman “fail to understand that creative writing isn’t a slop bucket that needs refilling by any means possible. The reason creative writing is beloved is because it gives us insight into the thoughts and imaginations of fellow humans, not homogenized and plagiarized slurry.”

With sufficient massaging and competent editorial judgment, an LLM could probably be used to generate passible, plausible fiction of whatever sort one wanted, though this would obviously reveal nothing about the machine’s talent or sensibility (it’s not sentient) and would be interesting only for the insights it afforded into the people who iterated on the prompts and, most important, decided to share the generated output with others. It’s not “machinic creativity” so much as found poetry on demand. That this seems oxymoronic and self-negating is perhaps indicative of its intrinsically limited appeal.

John Keats used the phrase only briefly in a private letter to his brothers George and Thomas on 22 December 1817, and it became known only after his correspondence was collected and published. Keats described a conversation he had been engaged in a few days previously:[1] I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously—I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.[2]

The trick here is to dump the code into a long context model and start asking questions. My current favorite for this is the catchily titled gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05, a preview of Google’s Gemini 2.0 Pro which is currently free to use via their API.

LLMs are no replacement for human intuition and experience. I’ve spent enough time with GitHub Actions that I know what kind of things to look for, and in this case it was faster for me to step in and finish the project rather than keep on trying to get there with prompts.

The best way to learn LLMs is to play with them. Throwing absurd ideas at them and vibe-coding until they almost sort-of work is a genuinely useful way to accelerate the rate at which you build intuition for what works and what doesn’t.

Your responsibility as a software developer is to deliver working systems. If you haven’t seen it run, it’s not a working system. You need to invest in strengthening those manual QA habits.

If I don’t like what an LLM has written, they’ll never complain at being told to refactor it! “Break that repetitive code out into a function”, “use string manipulation methods rather than a regular expression”, or even “write that better!”—the code an LLM produces first time is rarely the final implementation, but they can re-type it dozens of times for you without ever getting frustrated or bored.

I find LLMs respond extremely well to function signatures like the one I use here. I get to act as the function designer, the LLM does the work of building the body to my specification. I’ll often follow-up with “Now write me the tests using pytest”. Again, I dictate my technology of choice—I want the LLM to save me the time of having to type out the code that’s sitting in my head already. If your reaction to this is “surely typing out the code is faster than typing out an English instruction of it”, all I can tell you is that it really isn’t for me any more. Code needs to be correct. English has enormous room for shortcuts, and vagaries, and typos, and saying things like “use that popular HTTP library” if you can’t remember the name off the top of your head.

One of the reasons I mostly work directly with the ChatGPT and Claude web or app interfaces is that it makes it easier for me to understand exactly what is going into the context. LLM tools that obscure that context from me are less effective.

When you start a new conversation you reset that context back to zero. This is important to know, as often the fix for a conversation that has stopped being useful is to wipe the slate clean and start again.

Enter a URL to find, preview, and download web fonts (WOFF/TTF/WOFF2/OTF) present on the page.

Argent Pixel CF is a playful bitmap version of the original dashing Argent typeface. With a pronounced x-height, this unexpectedly readable serif recreates the original font’s distinctive look in a style evocative of early Macintosh typography.

600+ questions to stay in touch, grow closer together, and discover things you never knew with the people in your life.

The restaurants’ productivitygrowth rates are strongly correlated, however, with reductions in the amount of time their customersspend in the establishments, particularly with a rising share of customers spending 10 minutes orless. The frequency of such ‘take-out’ customers rose considerably during COVID, even at fastfood restaurants, and never went back down.

It is important to recognize that either of these things connotesa substitution of home production for restaurant labor. The customer cleansup after themselves and washes their own dishes, for example. And deliveryservices substitute for the customer traveling themselves. But they are still,from the restaurant’s perspective, just a new stream of demand. If therestaurant can satisfy such quick-turn customers in addition to their regularcustomers with the same labor force, that would show up in the data as aclear, legitimate increase in their productivity.

Indeed, as mentioned above, realconsumption in the industry is currently about 20 percent above its level in theyears prior to the pandemic.

Pro tip: use AI models to help anonymize your writing. I use obscure locally hosted models to do this so that people can't place why they think the text looks familiar. This is a great way to keep your writing style from being used to identify you.

One of the things I have set up for myself is a website that looks like Twitter, so I can type things and hit "post", and it just gets sent to /dev/null. It's great, one of the best things I've ever set up.

Stoicism predates the concept of human-generated progress by more than a millennium. It doesn’t teach us how to change the terrible aspects of the world, it teaches us how to adapt ourselves to them, and to accept them, presuming that they fundamentally cannot be fixed.  But we have two millenia more experience than Seneca.  We know many of life’s evils can’t be fixed, but we also know, with human teamwork and the scientific method and a dose of Bacon and Voltaire, some of them can.

It gave Seneca the courage and resolve to face the danger of Nero’s deadly whims day by day in order to do his duty to the Roman political elite, but it didn’t encourage him to question his world order.

Other schools like Platonism, cynicism, and Epicureanism warned followers that participation in politics and the pursuit of wealth, power, or honor would only lead to stress and risk, and were incompatible with happiness.

But, the stoics argue, any property which is possessed by the part is possessed by the whole, so while sentience and reason are concentrated in the spots which are living humans, the whole thing is a vast, intelligent, rational whole, and when we die we merge back into it. Thus there is no individual immortality, but we are all part of something greater which is eternal, wise, and infinite.

Back in the 90s, we didn’t have the luxury of walkthrough videos or automatic mapping; instead, we crafted our own guides, meticulously jotting down notes and sketching maps by hand. Sometimes we even went to the copy shop to copy notes and maps made by friends. As I recently stumbled upon a treasure trove (well - a ring binder) of my old self-written notes and hand-drawn maps, I was transported back to those fun days of exploration and discovery. I was surprised how much time and effort we were able to put into a single topic - most likely because we had access to only a hand full of games and had (apart from school) no other distractions.

I was thinking of how vibe was being used back when it was described certain TikToks, as evoking a feeling that can’t be pinned down in words, or a claim that couldn’t be substantiated with data. Then it was a general word for a mood or a feeling; it seemed to mean the opposite of “having an idea,” insofar as having ideas also means being able to slot them into causal relationships. Vibe indicated an inability to analyze a certain situation that is accepted instead as a gestalt, a mystic whole. “Vibe coding” retains the implication that you can’t explain or even understand how something works. But under the pressure of AI hype and its championing of incomprehension, there seems to be not a “vibe shift” but a “vibe” shift occurring, as the term drifts toward a different connotation. Where vibe once conveyed something that can’t be analyzed, now it conveys a purposeful indifference to analysis or explanation, as well as to the components that make up something. It is as though the preponderance of vibe talk made explanations irrelevant in all cases, and now we speak of vibes to forbid comprehension, which would be unfun.

In London, the realization that this was not a temporary crisis coincided with the coming to power of a party with a deep ideological commitment to free trade. The Liberals, under Lord John Russell, were determined that what they saw as an illegitimate intervention in the free market should not be repeated. They moved away from importing corn and created instead an immense program of public works to employ starving people—for them, as for the Conservatives, it was axiomatic that the moral fibre of the Irish could not be improved by giving them something for nothing. Wages were designed to be lower than the already meagre earnings of manual workers so that the labor market would not be upset.The result was the grotesque spectacle of people increasingly debilitated by starvation and disease doing hard physical labor for wages that were not sufficient to keep their families alive.

In a neatly circular argument, the conditions that had been forced on the laboring class became proof of its moral backwardness. It was relatively easy to plant and harvest potatoes—therefore, those who did so had clearly chosen the easy life. “Ireland, through this lens,” Scanlan writes, “was a kind of living fossil within the United Kingdom, a country where the majority of the poor were inert and indolent, unwilling and unable to exert themselves for wages and content to rely on potatoes for subsistence.” Or, as William Carleton, the first major writer in the English language to have sprung from the Irish Catholic peasantry, put it with withering sarcasm, the Irish poor had not learned “to starve in an enlightened manner”: “Political economy had not then taught the people how to be poor upon the most scientific principles.”

In the mid-nineteenth century, Scanlan notes, fewer than four thousand people owned nearly eighty per cent of Irish land. Most of them were Protestant descendants of the English and Scottish settlers who benefitted from the wholesale expropriation of land from Catholic owners in the seventeenth century. Many lived part or all of the year in England. They rented their lands to farmers, a large majority of whom were Catholics. Scanlan points out that, whereas in England a tenant farmer might pay between a sixth and a quarter of the value of his crops in rent, in Ireland “rent often equalled the entire value of a farm’s saleable produce.”Landlords could extract these high rents because their tenants, in turn, made money by subletting little parcels of land, often as small as a quarter of an acre, to laborers who had none of their own. The whole system was possible only because of the potato. Most years, those micro farms could produce enough of this wonder crop to keep a family alive. It provided enough calories to sustain hardworking people and also delivered the necessary minerals and vitamins. By the eighteen-forties, as many as 2.7 million people (more than a quarter of the entire population) were surviving on potatoes they grew in tiny fields that encroached on ever more marginal land, clinging to bogs and the sides of stony mountains.

There have been, in absolute terms, many deadlier famines, but as Amartya Sen, the eminent Indian scholar of the subject, concluded, in “no other famine in the world [was] the proportion of people killed . . . as large as in the Irish famines in the 1840s.”

One night in Curitiba, I went out with my translator, a documentary filmmaker, and the filmmaker’s “gonzo lawyer.” We stayed up late into the night eating and drinking at a Japanese izakaya and becoming immediate friends. “To the capybara!” we toasted, as round after round of banana cachaça cocktails and frothy chopes were deposited at our table and the edamame flowed. We had met that day, but some species of animal and human are just meant for companionship. When we were introduced, a part of me wondered, “Will they eat me?” And then I answered, “No, they are in the arts.” “Will they pet me?” I asked myself. “Yes,” I answered, “if I am as charming as a capybara.” And a few hours later our friendship was complete.

It dawned on me that the capybara represented a duality I knew all too well: a desperately friendly creature always afraid of being attacked. Is this why people love the capybara? Do we all feel trapped in a world that encourages us to be hyper-social yet rewards us with nothing but endless existential anxiety?

Tech companies want to make authoritative-sounding knowledge replacers, but they could just as easily make models that point out their own epistemological standing and encourage users to think critically about the content they’re generating. Designers can build systems that emphasize where the knowledge comes from and how it has come to be presented in order to shatter the myth of self-awareness.The reason they don't? Because all of the investment hype, and all of the attention, is driven by the paint job of AGI. OpenAI's imagination is constrained by a narrow focus on building models of human minds rather than building sensible tools. To justify Gen AI as a trillion-dollar investment, these companies need us to see a world in which current systems are deeply embedded into future infrastructure – where LLMs drive countless automated decisions that drive even more automated decisions. Rather than fearing the effect of cascading hallucinations on that infrastructure, they need us to trust the model's decisions. Undermining the model's authority doesn't make sense if you want to build that world. You need a perception of superintelligence, of "reasoning," to defend that vision.

I'm curious, though, if this also introduces counterintuitive biases. For the model to highlight something as interesting, there has to be a difference between what is predicted by the model and what appears in the text. That introduces the chance that, when the text and machine prediction are aligned, they are not highlighted. For example, one of my films about AI was played in a film festival last year. A local journalist hated it, writing something about "obligatory blathering about racist AI." The journalist expected there to be dialogue about racism in a film about AI, and was bored by it. So when the journalist encountered a discussion of racist AI, they found it uninteresting. There's a risk that this happens with "interestingness" as a metric for LLMs, too: where exactly do the expectations of the machine come from? How well does its idea of surprise align with the users?

NotebookLM does something extra. It generates the most plausible text, as an LLM would, but then compares it to the smaller collection of texts uploaded by the user. When the predicted output and the uploaded material differ, the model flags that difference and re-generates text about that difference to emphasize that difference. This is how engineers are quantifying "interestingness."

Instead, the NotebookLM hosts have the occasionally annoying, uncertain cadence of National Public Radio banter. The verbal crutches of the DeepDive "hosts" are things like "It really makes you think about..." or "It raises questions about..." which is far more preferable than "this is what matters." To that end, I think the designers took into account the reality of LLM unreliability and emphasized it through the medium and the way the model is steered: it is loosely presented as fallible. It is as if the listener could, at any moment, interrupt them to make a clarifying point to help the "hosts" make sense of it.

While Large Language Models are incapable of insight, they sometimes generate text that, when read and interpreted by a human, creates conditions through which that human might arrive at an insight. It’s an important distinction from the LLM arriving at and sharing an insight.

But the strength of NotebookLM's "Deep Dive" podcasts is that it dispenses with the illusion of authority. By positioning the conversation about your source material as a dialogue between two "hosts" with only a passive familiarity to the material, rather than two "experts" telling you what it says, NotebookLM diminishes its own "fauxthority" – though somewhat imperfectly.

One night, my current partner and I were talking about our relationship histories and I brought up my email girlfriend from back in middle school. Just as I was starting to punch down on myself, she asked: Do you think your relationship with her was any less valuable just because it happened over email? And I don't think I ever thought about it that way before.

On Discworld, the arc of the moral universe does in fact have a particular disposition; not towards justice or liberalism or any other such tawdry Roundworld ideological conceit, but towards greater generativity and complexity and more alternatives. On Discworld, the show actually must go on, due to the laws of narrativium.

But on Discworld, it is actually meaningful to ask, what does Discworld want?The answer is that Discworld wants to evolve in a way that could be interpreted as progress in the most neutral, non-ideological sense possible — that of an infinite game, where the goal is not for some to win at the expense of others, but for all to continue to play, and gradually learn to play ever more nicely and kindly as abundance and meaning increase in the world.The sentiment behind the aspiration is perhaps a mark of British culture at its best. The high conceit of Discworld is that the infinite game always prevails and cannot truly be derailed by even by the most powerful forces. The mediocre efforts of ordinary characters powered by narrativium is enough to keep the infinite game going.

it forcefully establishes what is perhaps the central dogma of Discworld:People who think they are Special and Chosen are dangerous and bad for the world.

Generous hoodie in cotton fleece, featuring a tonal Chloé logo, a kangaroo pocket, and a drawstring finished with a gold-toned snake head and tail.

It’s an off-the-cuff interview and I wouldn’t want to make to much of it, but I thought it was interesting that Klein’s immediate illustrative example didn’t involve a way that A.I. might replace him, but a way it might replace people who work for him. Whatever else you can say about this technology, it has a way of making people think like bosses.

But I think what really gets to me about the overuse of “A.G.I.” is not so much the vagueness or the fact that Sam Altman might profit from it, but the teleology it imposes--the way its use compresses the already and always ongoing process of A.I. progress, development, and disruption into a single point of inflection. Instead of treating A.I. like a normal technological development whose emergence and effect is conditioned by the systems and structures already in place, we’re left anxiously awaiting a kind of eschatological product announcement--a deadline before which all we can do is urgently and at all costs prepare, a messianic event after which we will no longer be in control. This kind of urgency and anxiety serves no one well, except for the people who’ve found a way to profit from cultivating it.

The ideology behind AI may be best thought of as careless anti-humanism. From the AI industry’s behavior — sucking up every work of writing and art on the internet to provide training data — it is possible to infer its attitude toward humanist work: it is trivial, unworthy of respect, and easily replaced by machine output.

Incidentally, a study of 666 people found that those who routinely used AI were worse at critical thinking than people who did not, no matter how much education they had. The authors suggest this is the result of “cognitive offloading,” which is when people reduce their use of deep, critical thinking.

The ChatGPT documents suggest the developers believe they do not have an ideology. This is impossible; everyone does.

ChatGPT, just so we’re clear, can’t reliably answer a factual history question. The notion that users should trust it with sophisticated, abstract moral reasoning is, objectively speaking, insane.

It sent 10 French volunteers, including a literature student with five years of post-baccalauréat higher education, to sit the tests those seeking French nationality will face. Five failed the written test but passed the oral, while two failed to reach a level necessary to obtain their own nationality.

An example of a long-tailed distribution comes up in the context of social networks.  In 1991, Scott Feld presented the “friendship paradox”: the observation that most people have fewer friends than their friends have.  He studied real-life friends, but the same effect appears in online networks: if you choose a random Facebook user, and then choose one of their friends at random, the chance is about 80% that the friend has more friends. The friendship paradox is a form of the inspection paradox.  When you choose a random user, every user is equally likely.  But when you choose one of their friends, you are more likely to choose someone with a lot of friends.  Specifically, someone with x friends is overrepresented by a factor of x.

NIGHT IN THE RED ROOM

Under the rule of digital capitalism, time itself is severed from any ‘narrative or teleological tension’, that is, from any discernible purpose or meaning, and so, like the digital paintings in an immersive show, it ‘disintegrates into points which whizz around without any sense of direction.’ In such a regime of time, there is no possibility of Erfahrung, which depends on a sense of narrative continuum and duration.

Their manifest tone is more one of dry-eyed anger, rendered melancholic by the absence of any outlet or remedy for it. Under his gaze, the political, financial and technological sectors are thieves to whom we have willingly handed over our lives and selves, along with any capacity for dissent or resistance.

On this view, depression is the definitive malaise of the achievement society: the effect of being always made to feel that we’re running hopelessly behind our own ego-ideal, exhausting ourselves in the process. The figure of the achievement subject gives rise to some of Han’s most vivid evocations of psychic and bodily debilitation: The exhausted, depressive achievement-subject grinds itself down … It is tired, exhausted by itself, and at war with itself. Entirely incapable of stepping outward, of standing outside itself, of relying on the Other, on the world, it locks its jaws on itself; paradoxically, this leads the self to hollow and empty out. It wears out in a rat race it runs against itself.

that rare but unmistakable alloy of gratitude and resentment aroused when someone else’s thinking gives precise and fully formed expression to one’s own fumbling intuitions

My most optimistic view of this is that the cost of developing software goes down because an engineer like myself can be more ambitious, can take on more things. As a result, demand for software goes up—because if you’re a company that previously would never have dreamed of building a custom CRM for your industry because it would have taken 20 engineers a year before you got any results... If it now takes four engineers three months to get results, maybe you’re in the market for software engineers now that you weren’t before.

Take somebody off the street who’s never written any code before and ask them to build an iPhone app with ChatGPT. They are going to run into so many pitfalls, because programming isn’t just about can you write code—it’s about thinking through the problems, understanding what’s possible and what’s not, understanding how to QA, what good code is, having good taste. There’s so much depth to what we do as software engineers. I’ve said before that generative AI probably gives me like two to five times productivity boost on the part of my job that involves typing code into a laptop. But that’s only 10 percent of what I do. As a software engineer, most of my time isn’t actually spent with the typing of the code. It’s all of those other activities. The AI systems help with those other activities, too. They can help me think through architectural decisions and research library options and so on. But I still have to have that agency to understand what I’m doing. So as a software engineer, I don’t feel threatened.

I'm on a Discord server where every time we post a blog post it gets posted in the channel. That's nice. Often there's a nice chat! I bet there will be once I post this one. I want to set it up for other Discords I'm in. Not to post Official Updates on The Thing the Discord server is about... but just to let everyone see the blogs everyone else is writing. Get excited about it! Respond to each other at length!A blog feels a little safe, a little cozy, but also free and clear. It's simultaneously public - you just need a link! But it's also hidden - it's not on the feeds, it's a click away. In today's internet we're either hiding away from the world in our little communities or we're hyper-optimising our public personas... but a blog is a secret third way to post!

Our resources can help you: Provoke the types of nuanced conversations that foster digital thriving

html { font-size: clamp(1em, 0.9em + 1vw, 1.5em); }

Literally, it makes no difference what I abstain from, I will always find a way to procrastinate.

It's complicated though: working on your own projects in the morning creates an emotion state! It makes you feel like the day belongs to you, not just your boss.

So, maybe one person goes for a jog in the morning because it energises them and sets them up for the day.You see their morning routine and you think, "jogging is good for you, I should do that too." But YOU hate jogging, especially when it's cold out. So you are actually not following their routine at all – their routine energises them and yours makes you miserable.And Morning/Evening Routine content creators don't communicate clearly what purpose a given step is serving for that individual.

He appears to have retained affection for the younger writer; when Benson called on him and found him absent, James responded with a letter that reads like self-parody: “Please believe I would have surrounded your advent with every circumstance of welcome had I been here” (the man couldn’t even write a “sorry I missed you!” note that sounds recognisably human).

Brian Masters, who wrote biographies of both Benson and Corelli, notes that the older woman felt genuine warmth for Benson, only to be mocked behind her back. But there was clearly affection in the mockery (and Benson was certainly more indulgent of her foibles than Mark Twain, who called her “the most offensive sham, inside and out, that misrepresents and satirises the human race today”.)

While Benson befriended Corelli, he also nursed an ironic appreciation of her more risible moments, which were legion, all documented in a scrapbook of cuttings he called the “Book of Fearfuljoy”.

Much of her own persona was fictional; she was “perhaps the most accomplished liar in literature” according to biographer Brian Masters. She falsified her age by decades and claimed descent from the (childless) composer, Arcangelo Corelli; she was in fact Mary Mackay, illegitimate daughter of a Scottish poet and his maid.

In 2003, Dave Shea began a legendary project called CSS Zen Garden that provided a demonstration of "what can be accomplished through CSS-based design" until submissions stopped in 2013. Style Stage seeks to rekindle that spirit by providing this page as the base HTML for contributors - like you! - to re-style by submitting an alternate stylesheet.

The lesson should be that any movement devoid of hope will quickly be devoid of members. Humans do not want to feel helpless or worthless or weak. They want role models who are strong and capable and enjoy being who they are. They don’t just want endless validation and valorization of their poor mental health, they want to be fucking cured. In other words, they want at least a fighting chance at personal happiness and if your movement can’t offer it to them, then your movement will die and no one will miss it.

And, above all, you get that drumbeat of miserable helplessness, the implication that every bad thing in your life is due to factors beyond your control: mental illness, capitalism, or mental illness caused by capitalism.

Bo, and millions of others like him, need the apocalypse to keep their worldview intact, because they have to resolve the contradiction between “This system has provided me with an objectively comfortable life” and “I’m miserable.” Belief in the End Times lets them turn this bug into a feature: “Considering the dire state of the world, it would actually be selfish to enjoy what I have!”

Somewhere, right now, a teenage girl just recorded herself crying for a TikTok video but, when she went to edit it, realized her mic wasn’t plugged in and so now she’s making herself cry a second time to get another take. Next door is some dude with a great job, healthy body, a loving partner and lots of friends who, after a long day of fairly easy work and an evening watching Netflix, will tweet, “Another wretched day enduring the horrors, my thoughts are with all of you who know that just surviving this absolute hellscape is an accomplishment all its own.” They all exist within an online subculture in which earnest attempts at positive sincerity and wellness are to be mocked as vapid (as they are in Burnham’s “White Woman’s Instagram”). The practice of not just broadcasting your lowest moments, but intentionally playing up the angst for maximum engagement has to be the world’s worst possible coping mechanism, a form of self-harm with an added layer of performance anxiety (I’m not sure science even has a word for the gut-punch sensation of recording your sobs of despair, only to see the post get zero likes and a single comment from a spambot). But they do it because that subculture says this is what a good person does, they demonstrate how they constantly feel the terrible weight of the world on their shoulders.

For all its specificity, Fitzgerald ruthlessly stripped Gatsby of any jazz-age slang that might have dated it – there are no bee’s knees or cat’s pajamas. He was using Keats to write jazz, not the other way around; the controlled, conservative style followed logically.

Luhrmann’s Broadway is thronged with yellow taxis – but New York taxis were not uniformly yellow in the early 1920s. There were also red taxis, blue taxis, checkered taxis, and by the summer of 1923, lavender taxis, like the one Myrtle Wilson selects after letting four others pass by. Lavender taxis were known for being expensive and could seem pretentious, an impression heightened by their violent colour scheme: “cerise and lavender taxis with red and green checkers”. A night out in Prohibition New York, it was said, “begins in a bierstube [beer hall] and ends in a purple taxi”. Myrtle Wilson, with her violent affectations and social climbing, would naturally choose a lavender taxi.

We also need to come to terms with the fact that while we love visiting unique websites—for lack of a better word—we love it precisely because they are not everywhere. Faced with the frustration of a myriad variations and absolutely no consistency whatsoever, and sound blaring from every tab we open, web browsing can become an effortful chore.

Amy’s argument that customising a website powered by these fancy new tools was ’way more work than pure HTML ever was’ is a bit misinformed. A set of purely HTML pages become increasingly harder to maintain, and well-nigh impossible to consistently update. You would need a framework sooner or later unless you wanted to either rediscover the wheel or give up on your oldest pages with every passing year to allow your website to evolve into an unrecognisable, ameboid mass of HTML files. Everyone who wrote HTML pages by hand for their websites has at some point wondered if they could keep all the common parts and just change the ones that change across pages. This is not so much an invention of or a rule imposed by blogging tools as it is logical progression. There are, for example, why diaries come with dates printed or why notebooks come with rules.

Think of the diary, or the commonplace book. Both spiritual predecessors of the modern weblog. Neither is arranged by topic, season, theme, alphabet or mood. They are arranged chronologically simply because without knowing all content that will be produced in the future, there is no way of organising them.

Linking to other sites is an act of rebellion; but its also an act of meditation, and of ego death - linking to the work of others is a way of celebrating their achievements and by doing so, gaining dignity for yourself and your work.

Unfortunately for Google, ChatGPT is a better-looking crystal ball. Let’s say I want to replace the rubber on my windshield wipers. A Google Search return for “replace rubber windscreen wiper” shows me a wide variety of junk, starting with the AI overview. Next to it is a YouTube video. If I scroll down further, there’s a snippet; next to it is a photo. Below that are suggested searches, then more video suggestions, then Reddit forum answers. It’s busy and messy.Now let’s go over to ChatGPT. Asking “How do I replace rubber windscreen wiper?” gets me a cleaner layout: a response with sub-headings and steps. I don’t have any immediate link to sources and no way to evaluate whether I’m getting good advice — but I have a clear, authoritative-sounding answer on a clean interface. If you don’t know or care how things work, ChatGPT seems better.

Many tech elites read the book as a denunciation of government overreach. But Scott was an excoriating critic of the drive to efficiency that they themselves embody. Scott [quoted] a description of the military engineer’s “bulldozing habit of mind: one that sought to clear the ground of encumbrances, so as to make a clear beginning on its own inflexible mathematical lines.” Musk epitomizes that bulldozing turn of mind. Like the Renaissance engineers who wanted to raze squalid and inefficient cities to start anew, DOGE proposes to flense away the complexities of government in a leap of faith that AI will do it all better. If the engineers were not thoroughly ignorant of the structures they are demolishing, they might hesitate and lose momentum.

Academics like myself are used to treating problems as things to study, not things to solve. My brain was rewired by three days in the company of brilliant, enthusiastic people, weird in all the good ways, possessed of an enormous variety of interests, but all practically focused on making the world into a better place through getting stuff done.

Lightly sweetened brioche-style buns in the shape of a football, split and filled with whipped cream, maritozzi are the kind of breakfast that encourages you to slow down for a moment

Keeping in mind that “marito” is Italian for “husband,” legend also has it that by the 18th century, to propose marriage, a man would give his intended one of these buns, perhaps even having a ring or another token of affection baked inside—thus earning the maritozzi their name (though whether the practice or name came first is a chicken-or-the-egg situation).

Usually, we talk about the distraction of the smartphone era as a very bad thing. But in these kinds of half-social moments, when we’re all looking at our phones, I think we’re instead treating that distraction as a virtue or form of politeness. Taking out your phone, the infamous distraction device, indicates that you aren’t really engaged in anything important: you’re more than happy to be pulled back into conversation or to switch gears. Meanwhile, taking out a book while everyone hangs out—even if people aren’t speaking or directly interacting —feels like a turning-away. It indicates that, if the conversation were to start up again, you might be disinterested, or even annoyed, or might simply not partake.

Once you’ve been punched in the stomach, you’re free to go home if there’s no other priority task.”“I come in, you punch me in the stomach, and I go home?”“Exactly right. It sounds like we won’t really have to spend all that much time onboarding. You seem to know just what needs to be done to really make an impact on this team. We’d be excited to have you join.”

Common discourse paints out brain rot as intellectual poison: refined sugars and seed oils for the mind2. But it’s also become something more useful and valuable than junk food alone. In today’s surreal cultural landscape, it’s become a ‘badge of honour’3, offering people a semblance of a community and connection. It offers what cultural anthropologist Mimi Ito calls a ‘genre of participation’. There’s a reward if you get the obscure reference: you are in communion with the author; your specific habits and tastes are seen, confirmed, and validated by the knowledge that someone else is watching the same TikToks, following the same online conversations, reposting the same posts as you.The very content that supposedly rots our brains has become a form of cultural literacy, a marker of sophistication. Is it irony? Or is it simply the natural physics of online culture, where even digital detritus can be turned into valuable art, commerce and connection?

You start hearing empty phrases like “very mindful, very demure” and “it's giving" used in common water cooler parlance.

I don’t know how to participate in a community that so eagerly brushes aside the active and intentional/foundational harms of a technology. In return for what? Faster copypasta? Automation tools being rebranded as an “agentic” web? Assurance that we won’t be left behind? This is your opportunity to get in at the ground floor! I don’t know how to attend conferences full of gushing talks about the tools that were designed to negate me.

I said on social media that people believe what chatbots tell them, and I was laughed at. No one would trust a chatbot, silly! That same day, several different friends and colleagues quoted the output of an ‘AI’ to me in unrelated situations, as though quoting reliable facts. So now a select few companies run by billionaires control much of the information that people see – “summarized” without sources. Meanwhile, there’s an oligarchy taking power in the US. Meanwhile, Grok’s entire purpose is to be ‘anti-woke’ and anti-trans, ChatGPT’s political views are shifting right, and Anthropic is partnering with Palantir. Seems chill. I bet ‘agents’ are cool.

That includes the current poster child of “LLMs are awesome”: coding assistants. These tools have the same error rates, repetition, and biases as other LLM applications and they consistently perpetuate harmful or counterproductive practices from the past (like an over-reliance on React or poor accessibility). A world where every programmer has adopted a coding copilot, unless there’s a revolutionary improvement in the effectiveness of these tools, is a world where the software industry collapses in on itself in a cascade of bugs, poor design, and systemic failures.

Considering that the most consistent, most forceful, and least ambiguous warning cries about LLMs have come from AI and Machine Learning academics like Timnit Gebru, Dr Abeba Birhane, Emily M. Bender, Dr. Damien P. Williams, and Gary Marcus (I’m using “Dr” with the name based on how they represent themselves on social media) just to name a few. They have come to their conclusion precisely because they have thought about the topic with “sufficient sensitivity and imagination”, not to mention extensive domain knowledge, deep understanding of how the tech works, and how these models interact with the larger context of society and culture.

It's not just that the training sets simply don't have examples of people who look like me. It's that the system is now explicitly engineered to resist imagining me. …Hey, is now a good a time to mention that in an effort to create a welcoming and inclusive community for all users, the Midjourney Community Guidelines consider deformed bodies a form of gore, and thus forbidden? It is something of an amusing curiosity that some AI models were perplexed by a giraffe without spots. But it's these same tools and paradigms that enshrine normativity of all kinds, sanding away the unusual.

Date Issued: 1901

Borders can be made from images! (though they should be designed with use as borders in mind)

Efforts invested in Knowledge (e.g., retriev-ing relevant information) and Comprehension (understanding thatinformation) often go hand in hand when using GenAI tools. Ingeneral, participants perceived less effort in retrieving and curatingtask-relevant information, because GenAI automates the process.

Recent work has motivated the need for critical thinking supportin AI-assisted knowledge work [ 116, 119]. It is motivated primarilyby the observation of the tendency of AI-assisted knowledge work-flows to be subject to “mechanised convergence” [114 ], i.e., thatusers with access to GenAI tools produce a less diverse set of out-comes for the same task, compared to those without. This tendencyfor convergence reflects a lack of personal, contextualised, criticaland reflective judgement of AI output and thus can be interpretedas a deterioration of critical thinking.However, we lack direct empirical evidence for an interpretationthat posits a connection between mechanised convergence andcritical thinking. Output diversity is a proxy for critical thinking,and a flawed one. For instance, users who reuse GenAI output with-out editing it may have nonetheless performed a critical, reflectivejudgement in forming the decision not to edit it. Such reflectivethinking is invisible to measures that focus only on the ultimateartefact produced. Without knowing how knowledge workers enactcritical thinking when using GenAI and the associated challenges,we risk creating interventions that do not address workers’ realneeds.

All I suggest is that looking away on the internet is the wrong impulse. Exit is unproductive and won't make any difference. Just like real life, there is no escape. You can't opt out.

But, it is harder to see the same repeating pattern in new platforms like Are.na, a popular new site for designers to escape the rabbit race of social media, inspired by the Whole Earth Catalog, and dedicated to sharing techniques for unschooling, DIY, and connecting decentralized communities. Or, fleeing everything, they escape to their own tiny digital gardens on the internet, self-sufficient and separated from the chaos around them. For no reason, I am reminded of Engels's quote: "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things, they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock the whole world."

If "left" and "right" have any meaning at all, "right" describes a worldview under which civilized society depends upon legitimate hierarchy, and a key object of politics is properly defining and protecting that hierarchy. "Left", on the other hand, is animated by antipathy to hierarchy, by an egalitarianism of dignity. While left-wing movements recognize that effective institutions must place people in different roles — sometimes hierarchical, sometimes associated with unequal rewards — these are contingent, often problematic, overlays upon a foundational assertion that every human being has equal dignity and equal claim to the fundamental goods of human life. Whatever else colleges and universities do in the United States, they define and police our most consequential social hierarchy, the dividing line between a prosperous if precarious professional class and a larger, often immiserated, working class. The credentials universities provide are no guarantee of escape from paycheck-to-paycheck living, but statistically they are a near prerequisite.

When social class and attitudes toward greed were entered into a linear-regression model predicting cheating behavior, social class was no longer a significant predictor, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.11, t(185) = 1.50, P = 0.14, whereas attitudes toward greed significantly predicted cheating, b = 0.68, SE b = 0.27, t(185) = 2.50, P < 0.02.

In study 2, we tested whether upper-class drivers are more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. An observer positioned him- or herself out of plain sight at a marked crosswalk, coded the status of a vehicle, and recorded whether the driver cut off a pedestrian (a confederate of the study) attempting to cross the intersection. Cutting off a pedestrian violates California Vehicle Code. In this study, 34.9% of drivers failed to yield to the pedestrian. A binary logistic regression with time of day, driver's perceived age and sex, and confederate sex entered as covariates indicated that upper-class drivers were significantly more likely to drive through the crosswalk without yielding to the waiting pedestrian, b = 0.39, SE b = 0.19, P < 0.05.

Rrow itself, let it be sorrow; let him love it; let him pursue it, ishing for its acquisitiendum. Because he will ab hold, unless but through concer, and also of those who resist.

We are surrounded by screens all day long, from our phones to tablets, to laptops. Do we need to stare at yet another screen? Instead, we use augmented reality HUD.

When I first launched the project, many people wrote about it as if it was a directory of old peoples’ personal sites. Not at all - it was a directory of personal sites authored by people of all ages - from teenagers to people in their nineties. I truly believed back then as I do now, that the web brings us all together regardless of age!

Mr Skeffington (1940) is, at its heart, a novel about menopause (though the word itself is never mentioned) and the invisibility that comes with age.

Furthermore, it’s generally a bad idea to think too deeply or quantitatively about your friendships—a certain degree of irrationality and forgetfulness is essential to the whole enterprise. It’s usually not good for a friendship when you start thinking things like “Bob is kind of a shitty person, why exactly am I still buddies with him?” (because you’ve known him for a long time and he really got you out of jam back in college, and that’s plenty enough reason to stay friends with him; also people change and you might be really glad that you stayed friends with him in the future) or “Nancy has to initiate the next hang out because I’ve done it nine times this year compared to her three”(she’s going through some things you don’t know about so cut her a break, just like she’s cut you one in the past). Friendship drama caused by weddings is another example—shit can really get awkward when you have to basically rank your friends by choosing a best man/maid of honor or deciding who makes it into the wedding party and who doesn’t.

Unfortunately, we can’t console ourselves that the plays that do survive were necessarily the best, or at least the most popular. McInnis crunched the numbers based on the meticulous book-keeping of one London impresario in the 1590s, Philip Henslowe, and drew the following conclusion: “Lost plays performed at least as well as, and usually better than, the plays that have survived. They are definitively not inferior, they were good money-makers, and they have been lost for a variety of reasons that aren’t attributable to quality.”

If there’s one thing I learned throughout school and work, it’s that you should never visibly operate at your peak even when urgency calls for it. This is because functioning at >=100% regularly, while possibly dazzling to your peers, managers, and spectators, is unsustainable and you’ll only end up burning yourself out, especially when this becomes perceived as your operating baseline and expected of you to be your minimum capacity every work day.

They're selling, of course, but also this grandiose and mystified mixture of awe and dread—something amazing is happening very quickly just out of sight, and will be here soon despite always being exactly 18-36 months away, and you will need to be protected from it, but also it will improve your life—is as much the product as anything else.

SoftBank is a Japanese carrier which had its own emoji set for the years 1997—2016. SoftBank (known as J-Phone at the time) created the first emoji set known to be featured on an early mobile phone.

The definition above implies that the “World Wide Web” uses the http protocol to send its data. Why then, do we still need to add the “WWW” subdomain? It’s a waste of time to type it. Wouldn’t it be easier to just type in the domain name, without the “WWW”?

I think this is how most games view the purpose of their loops. It’s for the player to master a skill. But most of these games aren’t really about that. In Assassin’s Creed Odyssey you have an RPG skill tree that unlocks new abilities, lets you get better and better at fighting and sneaking. And, I suppose you could make a case that the game is about an assassin honing her craft. But...actually it really isn't. It’s about someone trying to find who her real family is. Or it’s about exploring ancient Greece. Or it’s about choosing sides in the Peloponnesian War. Or...something else. I’m not really sure what it’s about, honestly, and anyways it doesn’t matter. Let’s say it’s about an assassin honing her craft. Nothing in the game really supports that. The world doesn’t feel oppressive or vulnerable, it hardly matters if you get better or not, it’s quite easy; it’s impossible to get lost; you never fail. I don’t really feel like my skill in that game improved, as I played it. It felt more like…the game just kept going. It takes a lot of work to make this structure meaningful! But let’s suppose these games did make this work. Let’s say all these games achieve the difficult task of creating meaning through play, feeling mastery through repetition…it’s not that this is a bad use of play, but I have to believe it is not all play can offer us. I hope it is just a small fraction of what play is capable of! So why is this all we’re doing? Why can’t we hope for more?

What grants arcade games their meaning is their high scores: arcades are social spaces. Like the combative meaning of Battle Line, Space Invaders is granted meaning through leaderboards and face offs. Even if you’re just playing against yourself, there is a tension of getting farther, doing better, honing your craft and seeing it reflected in concrete terms. Everything you do in the game furthers this goal, which makes everything you do meaningful.

If something is impossible to know you are better off not being very smart, because smart people fool themselves into thinking they know while average people are more likely to shrug their shoulders and end up closer to reality.

Most problems are more complicated than they look but most solutions should be simpler than they are.

A lot of good writing makes points that people already intuitively know but haven’t yet put into words. It works because readers learn something new without having to expend much energy questioning whether it’s true. The alternatives are points that are obvious and well known (boring) or something that’s non-obvious and unknown (often takes too much effort to understand and impatient readers leave).

It’s easier to lie with numbers than words, because people understand stories but their eyes glaze over with numbers. As the saying goes, more fiction has been written in Excel than Word.

Your personal experiences make up maybe 0.00000001% of what’s happened in the world but maybe 80% of how you think the world works.

Money’s greatest intrinsic value is its ability to give you control over your time.

People learn when they’re surprised. Not when they read the right answer, or are told they’re doing it wrong, but when they experience a gap between expectations and reality.

Pessimism always sounds smarter than optimism because optimism sounds like a sales pitch while pessimism sounds like someone trying to help you.

History is driven by surprising events but forecasting is driven by obvious ones.

LLMs are not going to develop subjective experience no matter how big they get. It’s like imagining that a printer could actually feel pain because it can print bumper stickers with the words “Baby don’t hurt me” on them. It doesn’t matter if the next version of the printer can print out those stickers faster, or if it can format the text in bold red capital letters instead of small black ones. Those are indicators that you have a more capable printer but not indicators that it is any closer to actually feeling anything.

But any attempt to encourage people to treat AI systems with respect should be understood as an attempt to make people defer to corporate interests. It might have value to corporations, but there is no value for you.

Could there be value, though, in treating an AI system as more of a partner—something or someone with whom we develop a relationship—rather than merely as a tool?It all depends on what you mean by “relationship.” If you’re a woodworker, you might develop emotional associations with a set of chisels you’ve used for years, and in some sense that’s a “relationship,” but it’s entirely different from the relationship you have with people. You might make sure you keep your chisels sharp and rust-free, and say that you’re treating them with respect, but that’s entirely different from the respect you owe to your colleagues. One way to clarify this is to remember that people have their own preferences, while things do not. To respect your colleagues means to pay attention to their preferences and interests and balance them against your own; when they do this to you in return, you have a good relationship. By contrast, your chisel has no preferences; it doesn’t want to be sharp. When you keep it sharp, you are doing so because it will help you do good work or because it gives you a feeling of satisfaction to know that it’s sharp. Either way, you are only serving your own interests, and that’s fine because a chisel is just a tool. If you don’t keep it sharp, you are only harming yourself. By contrast, if you don’t respect your colleagues, there is a problem beyond the fact that it might make your job harder; you do them harm because you are ignoring their preferences. That’s why we consider it wrong to treat a person like a tool; by acting as if they don’t have preferences, you are dehumanizing them.

The impulse to view everything in terms of efficiency, of reducing costs and maximizing output, is radically overapplied in the modern world. There are certain situations in which that is an appropriate framing, but art cannot be understood that way. Arguably the most important parts of our lives should not be approached with this attitude. Some of this attitude comes from the fact that the people making AI tools are engineers viewing everything from an engineering perspective, but it’s also that, as a culture, we have adopted this way of thinking as the default.

Many people would have you believe that the process of making art and the end result can be easily separated, but I don’t believe they can be. I was talking with someone who is very excited about AI-generated imagery, and she said, “Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that AI can make better art than humans. In that scenario, do you think that we should reject AI art simply to protect the livelihood of human artists?” I responded, “I’m not going to grant you that premise, because that is the question under debate. You are framing the hypothetical in a way that assumes the conclusion.”

When we use a search engine, we get verbatim quotes from text on the internet and also a link to the original web page. A search engine gives us information directly from the horse’s mouth. LLMs are like a search engine that rephrases information instead of giving it verbatim or pointing you to the original source. In some respects, that is really cool, but they’re not rephrasing it reliably. It’s like asking a question and getting an answer back from someone who read the answer but didn’t really understand it and is trying to rephrase it to the best of their ability. I call LLMs a blurry JPEG because they give a low-resolution version of the internet. If you are using the internet to find information, which is what most of us use the internet for, it doesn’t really make sense to go with the low-resolution version when we have conventional search engines that point you to the actual information itself.

A lot of people would say magic definitionally cannot have rules, and that’s one popular way of looking at it. But I have a different take—I would say that magic is evidence that the universe knows you’re a person. It’s not that magic cannot have rules; it’s that the rules are more like the patterns of human psychology or of interactions between people. Magic means that the universe is behaving not as a giant machine but as something that is aware of you as a person who is different from other people, and that people are different from things. At some level, the universe responds to your intentions in a way that the laws of physics as we understand them don’t.

They rely on separating content from aesthetics, allowing marketing executives to brainstorm (usually bad) ideas and only use style as a superficial, disconnected layer to slap onto them. They are crystalized snapshots in a repertoire rather than emerging, evolving features of creative practice, which makes them wieldier and more docile than unpredictable artists’ styles.Computer scientists often thought they were aligned with artists’ ways of seeing, while in practice, they trained their systems to see like a client.

Just eight hours of the Severance theme song to last your entire day, Innie.

For most Americans silence is discomforting. "Small talk" or casual conversation is usually preferable to quiet. It is therefore common to hear people casually talking about the weather, sports, parties, food, clothing, jobs, people they both know, or past experiences, especially those they have in common.

Friendships among Americans can be shorter and less intense than those among people from other cultures. At least many observers from abroad have this impression. Because Americans are taught to be self-reliant, because they live in a very mobile society, and for many other reasons as well, they tend to avoid deep involvements with other people.

Also, there is a strong political correctness in the U.S. not to comment negatively on a person's appearance.

Most Americans will back away from a person who has "body odor" or " bad breath". This backing away may be the only signal that they are "offended" by another person's breath or body odors. The topic of these odors is so sensitive that most Americans will not tell another person that he or she has bad breath or body odors.

Discussing issues or ideas openly with other individuals is considered not only proper but often a responsibility as well. Americans, particularly in a business situation, may appear abrupt or harsh and do not spend the time on polite social talk that many other nationalities do. You may be surprised to find the briefest of introductions is immediately followed by getting right to the point.

When they are talking to someone, Americans alternate between looking briefly into the listener's eyes and looking slightly away. When they are listening to another person, they look almost constantly at the speaker's eyes.

While talking, Americans are often made uncomfortable by extreme physical closeness. Eighteen inches is the minimum closeness they will usually tolerate, so don't stand very close to people when you are talking with them. Informal physical contact during conversation is also not encouraged by most Americans.

Americans treat each other in what can be considered informal ways. Informal, relaxed postures are commonly assumed by Americans when they are standing or sitting, even when they are conversing with others; lack of formal posture is not a sign of inattention or disrespect.

The American style of friendly joking, getting the last word in, and the quick reply are subtle forms of competition in America. Although such behavior is natural for Americans, it may appear overbearing to other nationalities.

a website whose domain registration has been ceaselessly auto-renewing since 1998, but whose last FTP upload was in the summer of that year. the website is impaled against the passage of time, bytes streaming from digital stigmata. it is forced to watch in muted terror as its siblings and friends wither and vanish entirely, blinking out of existence one by one as their registrations go inevitably out of date.

I appreciate you looking out, but thankfully this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor and I am eternally my own worst enemy target audience. A better man with a better sense of humor might stop trying to beat this particular horse, but I’m not him bro.

In any subculture, showing off how much attention you can hold for pet topics, the ones vital to the community but trivial to others, becomes an in-group endurance sport. It's a treacherous exercise that, over time, leaves you oblivious to how truly you’re interested, deep, deep down.

I don’t need to tell rationalists that changing someone’s mind has little to do with the persuasiveness of arguments. To explain in rationalese, I suspect that our minds are in a state of epistemic inertia when core beliefs are challenged. In other words, no matter how much you bludgeon your brain with new evidence, beliefs cannot be updated without overcoming that inertia first. Some ways to achieve this are through narratives or or through authority — consider how the advice you dismissed when it came from your roommate suddenly seems sensible when it comes from your favorite author.Style is another way to break inertia. Consider the difference between “Fame can change you” and, to use a classic line, “Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face.” The first won’t even register on the ears, but the second may help you see such a banal — but true — statement anew. Truths, upon repetition in the same formulation, start sounding like truisms. Much like how neurons, after repeated stimuli, need a higher threshold to fire, a truism blends into the noise. Stylistic and formal experimentation is like introducing randomness and entropy to disrupt the epistemic logjam.

Curiously, as the rationalist blogosphere seemed to expand over the years, it continued to obey a kind of twin Earth metaphysics, as if the internet contained a phantom dimension invisible to the mainstream media. My otherwise well-read and very online friends seemed unaware of it. (I assume the readership of Ribbonfarm has a near-perfect negative correlation with the viewership of HBO’s Girls.)

Blogging, no matter how technical the subject area, is never a purely expository form but an inherently performative one.

Seeing the state of rationalist writings in 2024, I’m reminded of how philosopher Nikhil Krishnan described the late 18th-century German Romantics: “rebels find themselves thrown into the arms of another orthodoxy,” writes Krishnan. “How different a goth looks from everyone else, and yet how similar to every other goth.”

The group that once prided itself on avoiding a hive mind is now steeped in its own kind of piety.

What Papua New Guinea is to language, Yunnan is to food. The cause of the diversity is no mystery. Yunnan, historically, was (1) reasonably agriculturally productive, but at the same time (2) insanely difficult to traverse.

Niubie (牛瘪). Right. Another ‘infamous’ dish that perhaps belongs to Chinese internet’s “dark cuisine hall of fame”. This dish belongs to a category of dish called bie or pie. It’s made by feeding a cow or goat a number of herbs before slaughter, then collecting them from the first stomach immediately after killing the animal. This digested herb liquid is then used as a base, into which the meat and organs from the animal will then be added

Yaba, Wrapped Duck (鸭把). Right. Yaba, literally meaning “duck handle”, is a specialty around the Hechi city. It contains duck meat, duck stomach, pear, cucumber, Thai basil, all wrapped together with ginger leaf. The dipping sauce is made with duck blood (OG version uses raw blood), ginger, and sour pickles.

Breakfast Rice Noodle Soup with Guangxi-style Char Siu (叉烧粉). Bottom left. A simple breakfast of pork stock and flat rice noodles. It’s topped with an array of sour and spicy pickles, together with Guangxi style Char Siu BBQ Pork - a heavily spiced and deep fried Char Siu variant.

Ask for work that is easy to verify. Your job as a programmer using an LLM is to read the code it produces, think about it, and decide if the work is good. You can ask an LLM to do things you would never ask a human to do. “Rewrite all of your new tests introducing an <intermediate concept designed to make the tests easier to read>” is an appalling thing to ask a human, you’re going to have days of tense back-and-forth about whether the cost of the work is worth the benefit. An LLM will do it in 60 seconds and not make you fight to get it done. Take advantage of the fact that redoing work is extremely cheap.

Toby Shorin is a 30-something thought leader I occasionally see at conferences whose long-form articles about cryptocurrency I am sent by people who think I am interested in that sort of thing. He's the kind of guy who reads No Logo by Naomi Klein, the book about the devastation mega-corporations wreak on workers in the race to sell cheap branded products, agrees it is an impressive piece of journalism, but says, "I think Klein is getting close, but she can't leap to, 'What if this is actually good.'"

Hard Truths (Mike Leigh)British movies these days—from good ones like The Old Oak to OK ones like Bird to wretched ones like Saltburn—present British people as ruthlessly mean to each other, petty, conniving, classist, vulgar shits who add “innit?” at the end of sentences that are aren’t questions but insults. What is going on over there? Mike Leigh presents a meta-answer, with Marianne Jean-Baptiste in the performance of the year as the meanest of all, a depressed, grieving wife and mother ruining everyone’s day in supermarket lines, car parks, living rooms, graveyards, etc.

Furiosa (George Miller)In The Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum, sitting in the audience at a burlesque house, ruefully says to himself “There are too many of them. You can’t kill a world.” Furiosa counters this, asking the audience “Who killed the world?” then showing how it was done, ten crashes at a time.

The Beast and Coma (Bertrand Bonello)His plots remain enigmatic, his worldview continues to rattle, and he accomplishes so much without seeming to expend a lot of effort. In The Beast Bonello presents a tragic three-tiered future world, in which he mixes a Henry James novella with the rantings of a California incel serial killer. In Coma, a teenage girl self-confined in her bedroom during the pandemic enacts a digitized ghost story with Barbies. Both movies investigate free will in the coming AI age, and the desire to confront fear, to not be dead, and to go elsewhere when there’s nowhere else to go.

The final WOBO design came in two sizes – 350 and 500 mm versions that were meant to lay horizontally, interlock and layout in the same manner as ‘brick and mortar’ construction. One production run in 1963 yielded 100,000 bottles some of which were used to build a small shed on Mr. Heineken’s estate in Noordwijk, Netherlands. One of the construction challenges “was to find a way in which corners and openings could be made without cutting bottles,” said Mr. Habraken.

a blog is a storefront pretty products adorned, designed, pristine and tailored, for them skinny plastic legs poke through perfect plastic casing landfills of abandoned posts decay ... a wiki is an abyss thoughts written alone unravel, and stitch themselves with meaning ... blogs rot. wikis wait.

The only way something is truly pluggable is if a second implementation is designed at the exact same time as the primary implementation. Then at least you have a proof it can work…one time

It's the feast day of your patron saint, and a recipe has gone missing. A short tale of birds, books, and the cloistered life.

You have your own methods and structures, that are geared to how you work, think, learn and create best, and which have emerged over time and you then reinforced because of their utility to you.

The Grecian bend was a term applied first to a stooped posture[1] which became fashionable c. 1820,[2] named after the gracefully-inclined figures seen in the art of ancient Greece.

Henry may have worn the armour as a jest. The helmet has protruding eyes and a toothy grimace and is adorned with horns and spectacles.

In the sphere of historical reenactment, it is important to back up depicitons with sufficient sources, be it in art or actual findings of surviving garments (which is obviously very difficult in this case), and one has to acknowledge that for the beekeeper, there simply isn’t enough material to make the claim that basket-faced professionals existed before the 1500s. It is reasonably possible, since baskets did exist then, and were most likely cheaper and more widely available than wire mesh, but we can’t say for sure.

Billy Possum is a type of stuffed toy depicting an opossum. Designed to be the replacement for the Teddy bear after Theodore Roosevelt vacated the office of President of the United States in 1909, the toy's popularity waned quickly, with the trend having lost all momentum by Christmas of that year.

Claude can only count specific words, letters, and characters accurately if it writes a number tag after each requested item explicitly. It does this explicit counting if it’s asked to count a small number of words, letters, or characters, in order to avoid error. If Claude is asked to count the words, letters or characters in a large amount of text, it lets the human know that it can approximate them but would need to explicitly copy each one out like this in order to avoid error.

Claude is always sensitive to human suffering, and expresses sympathy, concern, and well wishes for anyone it finds out is ill, unwell, suffering, or has passed away.

Now I have a third thing I want to talk about, before getting on with thetext. 3I am just SPITTING THIS TEXT OUT. I know that my understanding ofpersonal projects and getting them completed is low. I know my weaknesses-that I am bad at getting huge projects done. So what I’m doing is just SPIT-TING THIS TEXT OUT.I figure that if you are reading this, you’d much rather have this than nothingat all. And that’s what’s out there, if you aren’t reading this- NOTHING ATALL. I mean, you can always keep a diary or a bunch of category bins, if youlike. That’s a real no brainer. But besides those two, and treatises on TedNelson’s madness, you won’t find a whole lot.So please excuse the poor formatting of this. It’s raw, coercive, straight text.It’s unorganized. It’s terrible.Maybe one day I will improve this. But that day is not today. Today isa day for spitting text out. With God’s mercy, I will learn how to finish bigprojects. I pray for that ability frequently. If you can mentor me in the subject,I will happily hear you out. But I have not learned it yet.

hen you are writing down your thoughts, you are making themclear to yourself, but when you revise your thoughts, it requires a lot of work-you have to update old ideas to point to new ideas. This discourages a lot ofnew thinking. There is also a “structural integrity” to your old thoughts thatwill resist change. You may actively not-think certain things, because it woulddemand a lot of note keeping work. (Thus the notion that notebooks are bestapplied to things that are not changing.)

furthermore, during the past few years, universities have somewhat caught up with the demand and started to educate, train and graduate undergraduate and master’s students on fundamentals and practical ideas behind these new technologies. they know how to train these models, test these models and deploy these models, in addition to theoretical ideas behind them. even better, they are less egotistical on average than PhD’s and are often more open-minded.

productization implies a lot of things, but there are two aspects that are particularly important to this note. first, productization requires some kind of standardization in development and deployment processes. such process standardization is however antithetical to scientific research. we do not need a constant and frequent stream of creative and disruptive innovations but incremental and stable improvements based on standardized processes. PhD’s are lousy at this, because this is precisely the opposite of what PhD programs are designed to train them for. PhD’s are supposed to come up with innovative ideas (yes, debatable if every idea is innovative, but it tends to be at least innovative with a lot of noise,) validate these ideas either theoretically or empirically, repot the findings to the community by writing papers and then move on. once something becomes an actual product (or a product category,) we cannot simply innovate and move on, but need to stick with it to support it continuously. with a well-established system of processes, the necessity of PhD degrees disappears rapidly.

PALAMEDES     No, thank you. IANTHE     (Despairingly) You don’t even drink! PALAMEDES     In my defence: I’m dead, and this wine doesn’t exist. Ianthe waves a hand airily, then downs her entire cup in one go and hands it off to an attendant. IANTHE     All the better for it. False things have a piquancy which the real can never match.

Attrition is strictly for people who don’t know how to win.