Original paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c06155?re...
The scale is micrometer sizes… I wonder what the limits for shrinking are?
HN user
Original paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c06155?re...
The scale is micrometer sizes… I wonder what the limits for shrinking are?
Totally agree. Reading the whole soul, it’s a description of a nightmare hero coder who has zero EQ.
> But I think the most remarkable thing about this document is how unremarkable it is. Usually getting an AI to act badly requires extensive “jailbreaking” to get around safety guardrails.
Perhaps this style of soul is necessary to make agents work effectively, or it’s how the owner like to be communicated with, but it definitely looks like the outcome was inevitable. What kind of guardrails does the author think would prevent this? “Don’t be evil”?Nitpick: if you’re trying to illustrate sizes of things, you should use an equal-area map projection.
The Southern Ocean wind installation is to the right scale or not?
I wonder if making this change will improve design of buffering across IO implementers because buffering needs consideration upfront, rather than treatment as some feature bolted on the side?
It’s a good sacrifice if the redesign, whilst being more complicated, is avoiding an oversimplified abstraction which end up restricting optimisation opportunities.
Not to be confused with Dr John Cooper Clarke, expert in disarming poetry.