For years I worked at a large company with so many blockers for everything that I always worked like this all the time - have 5 projects so when one becomes blocked for external deps, you have one to pull out and work on. There is a context switch (which lead me to context preservation habits like checking everything I write into git; using tmux so that the context is sitting around in the bash history of the shell where I was working, that sort of thing; lots of org files and Mac stickies with TODOs etc).
I still do this, and don't really think it's avoidable, but when the expectation around compressed timelines because of the imaginary ability to rapidly do synchronous non-trivial tasks in parallel, that's both things get sone poorly.
Feels akin to something like driving in stop and go traffic while playing chess with a passenger who's shit talking me.
I have lived in the DC metro area inside the beltway or in Sillicon Valley my entire adult life and have only had above ground power wiring. Despite tree ordnances and wind storms and a grid so aged if we see lightning we lose power.
I've heard that before, that the US apparently loves above ground power lines. In NL it's only the long distance ones that are above ground. Even in most rural areas, I think everything is below ground.
Yes, we love them on account of our country having approximately 230 times the surface area and the Netherlands having approximately 13x the population density. We not only have vastly more line to run, but also many, many fewer people per square mile to absorb the costs. Underground line is expensive.
That explains rural areas but not urban areas. We've got above-ground in rural areas but pretty much all urban stuff is underground. We get maybe one power cut a year, usually for scheduled maintenance work, and no problems with surges and whatnot.
I did not realize all the dendritic synapses were excitatory, I always thought it depended on the specific neurotransmitters released. Thanks, this is cool. I am curious what will happen when we build LLMs that have the equivalent of chemical diffusions between synaptic release areas as well as the temporality of spiking neural nets.
Also your eyes are good at seeing patterns. If the formatting is all consistent the patterns they see will be higher level, long functions unintuitive names, missing check for return success; make bad good look bad is the idea. Carefully reading every line is good but getting hints of things to check more deeply because it looks wrong to the eyes is extremely useful.
Human life includes a lot of adversarial training (lying relatives) and training in temporal logics, which would seem to be a somewhat different domain than purely linguistic computations (e.g. staying up late, feeling bad; working hard at a task for months, getting better at it; feeling physical skills, even editing Go with emacs, move from the conscious layer into the cerebrellar layer). I think attention is a poor mans "OODA" loop; cognitive science is learning that a primary function of the brain is predicting what will be going on with the body in the immediate future, and prepping for it; that's not a thing that LLMs are architecturally positioned to do. Maybe swarms of agents (although in my mind that's more of a way to deal with LLM poor performance with large context of instructions (as opposed to large context of data) than a way to have contending systems fighting to make a decision for the overall entity), but they still lack both the real-time computational aspect and the continuously tricky problem of other people telling partially correct information.
There's plenty of training data, for a human. The LLM architecture is not as efficient as the brain; perhaps we can overcome that with enough twitter posts from PhDs, and enough YouTubes of people answering "why" to their four year olds and college lectures, but that's kind of an experimental question.
Starting a network out in a contrained body and have it learn how to control that, with a social context of parents and siblings would be an interesting experiment, especially if you could give it an inherent temporality and a good similar-content-addressable persistent memory. Perhaps a bit terrifying experiment, but I guess the protocols for this would be air-gapped, not internet connected with a credit card.
Why would you think a system that can reason well in one domain could not reason well in other domains? Intelligence is a generic, on-the-fly programmable quality. And perhaps your coding is different from mine, but it includes a great deal of general reasoning, going from formal statements to informal understandings and back until I get a formalization that will solve the actual real world problem as constrained.
Email itself cannot be regarded as a reliable delivery method. That said, I host my own email service, have for decades, and often have problems sending to people. I am not running a product on it, and so my recipients usually will check in spam since they want my email. My family knows to txt if there is an email I need to read (that isn’t a mail hosting problem but I don’t really read email consistently). I also have a small web site where I can put family recipes and my resume and the odd file that is too large for email. And a mastodon instance, sync thing, dns, and an old fingerd I wrote in Lisp in 2008 when I was done being a stay at home dad and needed an industry job.
It is a great hobby, and a good way to keep aware of current trends in internet infrastructure. And, like riding a bicycle to commute, maximally free of red tape or external regulation.
The gas town discord has two people that are doing transformation of extremely legacy in house Java frameworks. Not reporting great success yet but also probably work that just wouldn’t be done otherwise.
reply