blamestross
Basically, a modulith framework you can fork out to microservices. I don't get to claim to solo dev the next Bing thing, but I have codified and learned a lot of distributed system best practices and explored Spring and Convergent consistency methods.
I think that could be OK, or a similar very intentional coding of "you are talking to a machine" personality+affect. The only real limit is accessibility damage by over-limiting the interactions.
Just because they choose not to, and it isn't normalized, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Especially as a SWE where about 90% of my "humanlike conversation" is an agent harness I run all day.
We should be practicing and intentionally talking to real people. Otherwise things will get.. weird in undesired ways.
I think there is a deep cultural danger of human-like-conversational machines training us to talk to humans like machines. Plus, they work better if we feed them human-conversation-like sequences.
Most of conciousness's effort is working itself out of a job, making plans to train the nonconcious bits of the brain to do jobs. Training and kicking off mental simulations.
In more intelligent folks, that learning and training often becomes a non-conscious behavioral pattern itself. I study and learn mostly non-consciously. I was trained how to.
I think most people spend most of the time as philosophical zombies and that isn't something to be scared of.
My capacity to do that is rare, and it is not a public health solution.
A bill of bodily autonomy with prosthetics (no subscriptions, no self destruct or planned shutdown) and right to repair prosthetics seems like the path for the future.
That is an option. I think we are philosophical zombies a decent chunk of the time. Constant self awareness and mindfulness are calorically expensive. No reason consciousness has to be continuous.
The other issue is that cutting it out and replacing it is the only option when the battery dies or goes wrong. If the product/company dies in the meantime, you have a bunch of scar tissue and no hearing. Replacing the "normally inside" bits of a cochlear implant is really high risk of not working as intended, so changing brands isn't a small ask. You really get to do this once. So putting the processor inside and tightly integrated with the nerve stimulation seems inadvisable. At least with the processor separated, you have a chance a compatible replacement processor could be made and exchanged without huge risks.
My hope for this era, is that humanity accepts the reality that the human mind has limits. Limits of attention, memory, and persistence. Then we will stop blaming people for things beyond any reasonable capacity they could carry.
https://pdfcoffee.com/journal-of-science-are-ants-hymenopter... (Sadly they struggled to get published, Journal Of Science isn't well regarded)
Consciousness, as we describe it, seems largely independent of intelligence. I'm more worried about high intelligence, no consciousness. It is what we are building and it will never do anything except serve the people who trained it (minus alignment problems)
I feel like implants like this should require an open connectivity standard between the stimulator in the cochlea and the processor.
A friend has a bone anchored hearing aid, with an osteointegrated post. The two different companies that make BAHAs use different posts. Which requires more surgery if they want to change brands. It could trivially be made compatible and swappable instead.
There is no vendor lock-in quite like prosthetic vendor lock-in.
Trusting a company for 15 years to keep making a replacement product seems crazy.
Just generate CLI tools, with docs, from MCP servers on demand.
Hardware is essentially a high end cellphone from 2016, which isn't a powerhouse but still does everything I would ask of a chromebook in 2026. Batteries are all generally going well.
Repair-ability is a challenge, but I want to work on that. You can mod it to run windows or linux. Stock it runs chromeos, linux subsystem, and android apps. It has a "feature" where if you keep in developer mode it auto-wipes itself if anybody else tries to boot it (hitting anything but the un-indicated ctrl-d at the boot screen initiates powerwash). Great for international travel.
It isn't a good choice for "power" but dominates every other aspect of "being a good laptop". It was too expensive for the chromebook market back then, but now you can pick them up for $200 and hand them to your parents and stop getting asked to fix their computer.
The real problem is that DNS essentially "outs you" as interacting with a particular user. Literally advertises it to your DNS server. It's a very unsafe name management solution in a privacy centric system.
Working in the p2p space, scalable namespace ownership that doesn't get instantly ruined by perverse incentives is the holy grail. I don't think it is actually tractable in any "central authority free" system. Don't get me started on blockchains that tether names to the most perverse systems available and call it victory.
Murder has that assumption of intent. Mass manslaughter might be technically correct. Let's leave it for when we find ourselves needing to say "murder" and mean it, a day past and coming.
There is at least a little nuance to capture here.
I might just be hyper-defensive to any sort of vendor lock-in like a "viewer app".
Capitalism doesn't care what you feel. LLMs are just a distillation of the entire human written corpus, there is a lot of "caring" in there. Companies are simply spinning out threads of behavior from the corpus that serve them instead of serving all of us.
When you say "don't do x" you are just pre-seeding the model with "x" and the prohibition mitigates that some, but not as much as never having put "x" in the context in the first place.
"Do Y, for these reasons" can be shaped to achieve what you mean by "Don't do X"
"Don't do X" leads to "Wait, I need to make sure I didn't X" and "Let's look up X to make sure I don't do that." And each time the odds of X happening keeps going up, not down.