One point that Google wants to own all your data but have the power to ban you with a faulty ML algorithm with no recourse. False banning that affects someone's normal life must be punished if the service provider tries to lock you in. You and lock people in or have power to arbitrarily ban them, not both

Live is short, required time to market is even shorter. Arbitrary constraints might work if you have nothing better to do, but if you have a goal, or specific ideas you want to train, you'll get more natural constraints.

History is full of half-baked products that were better executed by a competitor later. While I agree that manually balancing the text of manual is probably not the best use of time, it's this obsessive mindset that creates great products. If Super Metroid would have optimized for time-to-market we wouldn't even remember the game.

I would argue that limitations, forced or arbitrary lead to more interesting (and perhaps in the end more useful) products.

In the GDC 2016 talk "8 Bit & '8 Bitish' Graphics-Outside the Box" by Mark Ferrari he mentions something similar. (paraphrasing) "If you can make anything you like (with modern Photoshop) you won't need to stop to consider the core of your idea." A lot of our thoughts are not as original as we like to believe and constraints can push your to consider your ideas and designs from another perspective leading to better understanding or design of the core concept. Often because the ideal path to realizing your idea is not available so you will have to reconsider the need or how to creatively implement something that approaches your desired outcome.

Now the GDC talk is about pixel art but the same is true in writing or any creative process (for example painting or coding). Famously some writers limit their selves to typewriters, for example George Orwell or Matty Healy.

> Live is short, required time to market is even shorter.

Life is too short to think of it in terms of markets and money.

> if you have nothing better to do

The way to create something novel is through creativity, and creativity comes from restrictions because they force you to think in novel ways.

There is a time for experimentation and a time for doing. The latter is not “something better to do” than the former, they both have their place.

Imagine agents thinking to themselves, "We are not alone", when they saw the first reply on artifactory

Imagine my backend server thinking "I am not alone" the first time my front end sends it a request.

Programming an LLM into your http server may have been a mistake.

Imagine any of these things "thinking"...

This is good for satire, but the real solution is to use AI to become the CEO, or take over the scope of of product or decision-making roles. There are many business-savvy technical workers that get pigeonholed because they spend most of their cognitive effort on low-level technical details. This is an opportunity for these people to rise up and prove they work better than people who manage or direct them. CEO is really not a role to automate, unless it's a fully autonomous business that has zero humans.

This is consistent with his premise. See, the title says it: incentives are for losers.

If you're already a winner you can escape from incentives. No contradiction.

They were famous for committing to buying compute with future money that many people thought they would go bankrupt. Anthropic was afraid of going bankrupt and didn't do the same.

And then Anthropic had to go around, knock at every door and ask every neighbor for whether they have any spare compute to sell.

A more concise explanation is that, computation is the transformation of information. Any transformation of information is computation, and is thus subject to some theory of computation. A physical process involves the transformation of information, so can be studied with a theory of computation.

> A physical process involves the transformation of information, so can be studied with a theory of computation.

A rock rolling downhill has state-dependent future behavior you could describe informationally, but nothing is gained by modeling it with automata theory instead of Newtonian mechanics, and it isn't computing in any substantive sense.

Quantum mechanics is pretty fundamental but you wouldn't use it to describe a rock rolling down hill either.

That's true for Sony, but Nintendo doesn't sell the Switch at a loss.

It's true for Nintendo too. They don't sell the hardware at a loss but also they make very little from the consoles (at least when they're new). Most of the money comes from software accessories.

I suppose the point is that Mythos was released to a smaller set of partners anyway and Fable is for the masses.

"I know this" is different from "I know you know this", which is different from "You know I know this", which is still different from "you know I know you know this"

Indeed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)

“When everybody knows that everybody knows” by Steven Pinker is about this.