adamsb6
Now it’s a competition between products on the near frontier. Anthropic has executed well on products so far. They blew up thanks to Claude Code, not Opus by itself.
A pathogen with a very long incubation time and a high fatality rate would be about as bad as nuclear war. Maybe we need to figure out how to possibly defend against one person doing this before making it easy for anyone to do it.
Was quite disappointed to see that the PC side hasn't kept up. The unified architecture on Macs makes it very hard to justify spending money on a Linux machine for inference workloads.
Also I don't really care that it's a bit of a cheerleader for DeepMind and Hassabis. Substantive criticism is good, but too often with these kind of books it feels like an editor told the author that the book needs something negative and the author has to inflate an issue to meet the requirement.
Imagine if your employer wanted to start using a software system it retired in 1972. What would you do?
The first time we traveled domestically in China I kept thinking that my wife had to be mistaken, there has to be some kind of confirmation we need to show in order to board. But nope, it literally is just show up with your ID.
Competent experts could tell you how much safer you would be if you wore a helmet to drive your car. They can't tell you how much you should value that extra bit of safety.
They've changed the AVCOAT to be less permeable and altered the re-entry profile.
One of the findings of Artemis I is that lack of permeability led to trapped gas pockets which expanded and blew out pieces of heat shield. The reason for the change to be less permeable is to make it easier to perform ultrasonic testing, not to improve performance.
They altered the re-entry profile on the theory that the skip period contributed to spalling, but Charles Camarda disagrees in this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz...
> Another chart which the Artemis Tiger Team did not intend to show on Jan. 8th, was the figure showing the spallation events as a function of time during the skip entry heating profiles (Figure 6.0-4 of NESC Report TI-23-0189 Vol. 1). In this figure, it was quite clear that the Program narrative they were feeding to the press, that it was the dwell time during the skip which allowed the gases generated to build up and cause the delta pressures which caused most of the spallation was, again, patently false. In fact, during the first heat pulse (t ≈ 0 to 240 sec), approximately 40-45% of all the medium to large chunks of ablator spalled off the Artemis I heatshield.
> Hence, varying the trajectory would do little to prevent spallation during Artemis II. I was never shown the new, modified trajectory at the Jan. 8th meeting.
Godspeed crew of Artemis II.
It’s the original use case for LLMs.
Well, I guess you lose artificial if there’s a human brain hidden in the box.
Yeah, right.
I really do have a panacea though.
And the upfront cost will be quite high.
The OSINT folks aren't technically spying but they're a lot closer to it than this.
The smart thing to do in that environment isn't to push the issue so that years later someone can't write that there wasn't an official challenge. It's to read the room and abandon the deal.
The existing Roomba revenue stream probably doesn't matter. The expertise or maybe the brand (not a great brand imho) aligns with some company priority.