I finally built an agent harness. but it runs inside your ship computer in my 2D space game. your entire ship is controlled through "python" including wiring up hotkeys, you have to upgrade your computer to have the budget for more complex controls and coding agents.
I also don't believe people are inherently greedy, but I do believe massive wealth is tempting. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Again, nothing ontological about it.
Safety, power, comfort, all are at play when making such decision. Your upbringing can make your fixated on these.
Again: many factors are at play and I'm yet to see a conclusive proof being morally bad is an ontological necessity. Literally every single case of "shitty person getting rich" I have seen so far I can attribute to unique circumstances, with nothing in common.
When you get that level of power, it's tempting. I'd argue it's totally human to not give it away.
For this reason, I've never been 100% convinced only shitty people can become ultra wealthy; money attracts more money almost naturally. Plus world is a complex place, so many things can factor in.
Never understood it either. Many people, some of them smarter than me, assume that this power coming with money changes people. They see the world differently than you and I do.
Bluesky can become a very daunting experience if you don't account for it though.
As the end result, it doesn't look overdone at all! Rather, the appropriate amount. :)
In case of doubts, DISCLAIMER: I and @OpenAI are not affiliated and any way. I don't know anybody there. If I say that GPT 5.4 is good, is because I love code, human written code, LLM written code, code written by machines & humans together. So I love good tools about code.
Fair enough, I can support that. I try to be result-oriented anyways.
But if you read back the thread, I'm genuinely glad for renewables. Especially in the last couple years, I can see it worth trusting.
It's just that the energy potential in nuclear fissile material is so enormously massive I cannot ignore (let alone refuse) it with good conscience.
Nice roast, but I prefer not to take it.
It's still possible to see these costs as justified, and an acceptable addition to have something other than renewables (and fossil...?) in the energy mix of a country.
Energy is nuanced and complex, efficiency and cost is not the only factor to consider.
10/10 would die again
Frankly, my domain knowledge stops about here. I have no information on costs to form a strong argument.
Strictly subjectively speaking, I still see it as the benefits outweighing the costs, harms and risks.
I also don't live in the US so I don't necessarily advocate for more nuclear plants there.
Or, maybe better worded: I'm more alright with nuclear energy having an upper threshold that factors in the risk of nuclear waste, than a total breakdown or elimination of nuclear energy. That's just irrational (and frankly, somewhat suicidal) to me.
Point being, having nuclear reactors, even powerful ones, even with these risks, is alright for most risk assessments. I was mostly commenting here to spread that sentiment a little bit. (it seems it earned me a block already)
Of course I'm welcoming the fact of new energy being more&more renewable
Fair enough.
I'd still insist focusing on making a world in which such assumptions are unnecessary.
After all, currently existing solutions for waste are already planning ahead for a massive time scale (ideally) in such a way poisining shouldn't be a concern.
I've seen one such facility myself.
Personally, I'd rather working on making that a given, and not an anomaly. Not naively, of course, I'm aware it takes effort, but my standards are much higher than what billions of others have.
Renewables can also be cancelled any time, if rampant capitalism and/or anti-intellectualism spreads.
On the other hand, there's no argument against being failsafe. That's always a good thing, I wouldn't advise against it.
And definitely a good argument to decrease *but not eliminate* nuclear energy sources.
Yes, that's a fair assessment. Never thought of this aspect.
I still don't know - if we can't expect our government and our budget to have at least the bare minimum standards, what else can we hope in other aspects of life? Life becomes survival.
I cannot envision a life like that.
There should be more discussion about Bluesky's harassment culture.
There are well-established practices for that.
What struggle you're aware of that cannot be contributed to corporate abuse and/or the (alleged) lacking regulation in countries like the US?
Nuclear waste as danger is often (at least more often than not) blown way out of proportions. Zero waste is always better, absolutely, but for what it's worth, nuclear is a decently clean source of energy, too.
I can even see a future in which the radiation of such waste is utilized too. One day...
Maybe not a renaissance, never even heard of it (though that very well could be on me) but it's a very efficient complementary to renewables.
It would be foolish to divert resources from solar, though, that's for sure.
I'm very convinced that if some(/all?) preceeding LLMs were treated with this level of caution, rather than immeditely released to all society (especially for free) then the whole technology wouldn't have become so massively controversial in certain specific circles.
Anthropic is on the right track
Sidenote: it also gets massive hatred for a tool and sometimes it makes it harder to use than its actual contraints do. But yeah no way it replaces any job requiring creativity. (even software developent requires that)
In my experience, it has *some* understanding of good architecture patterns, but of course those are the ones that worked in the past. Game design is much more finicky, had little luck with it. My bet is that it's such an interdisciplinary field it's harder to replicate.
Anyways, it's just a tool.
From the title, I expected this to be one of those "users, amirite?" articles that I really hate. But it's actually not? Honestly I think this is one of the better articles I've seen try to talk about this divide without painting one side of it as stupid or evil.
It shows, buddy.
World is fast. Especially nowadays - it's more of a cultural and/or structural thing. Few have the freedom to allow not being fast.
Plus there's value in rapid prototyping - stuff that won't ever work should be uncovered fast.
So the good way is some compromise.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
That's a business decision, and in mid-to-large companies, a separate business department decides about it.
For the better or worse; it's just that nowadays the "worse" side is much more visible.
This tension is essentially inevitable, but good(/better?) companies can mitigate it, that's true.
