moomin

It is wild that, 80 years after a girl was murdered, she’s relevant to a court case involving technology it would have taken over an hour to explain in 1945.

I think a better way of describing it would be, someone broke into your house. The police said they'd patrol it, but it would take 20 years to set up. In those 20 years, no-one broke into your house. You might suspect they had other reasons for wanting to patrol outside your house.

It turns out that sometimes you really do want health and safety obsessed bureaucrats.

No, they're just owned by people. Most of whom aren't billionaires.

True Capitalism looks a lot more like socialism than many would like to admit.

A weird question to ask in a thread about the destruction of evidence.

It would be, but humans are famously bad at judging relative areas at all, which is a problem for data visualisation everywhere.

TL;DR by controlling the route every car takes and traffic lights, we’d get a 2% reduction in traffic.

I don’t think this heralds and great change in transport policy.

My experience suggests that they _can_ be good, but this particular pattern they can be remarkably bad at. Source: I keep having to optimise this pattern.

I considered it, but I figured that whatever I did there would be inconclusive. Instead I tried to figure out the blast radius of this being proven, and I didn’t get very far with that either.

For comedy’s sake, I asked ChatGPT 5.5 about the significance of the problem and the chance that 5.6 would solve it with a three page solution. It said close to zero.

I invited it to search the internet and it remains extremely sceptical.

This is actually great, and I predict that fans of nil-punning will rapidly discover the joys of actually having errors trigger where the error was introduced rather than propagating through the program.

Any news on ClojureScript gaining the feature?

Don’t worry, some of us remember Y2K and a) how much we fixed b) how much went wrong on the day and c) getting told it was a waste of time later.

And I didn’t even have to deal with a jumpy national government.

Yes, there’s been a very popular narrative that Mythos’ abilities are just marketing fluff. I think it’s clear that there’s a real capability here, even if Anthropic’s communications have been heavily influenced by PR concerns.

This is one of those little things I’ve had trouble putting my finger on: the US eats surprisingly few oats. The U.K. eats more than three times as much on average. Which is probably one of the reasons I find US cuisine slightly uncanny valley.

Southern Europe doesn’t really consume much either, but most US food is closer to Northern European food.

I’m not a follower either, but inference from the article tells me: Krammik has come up with some sort of cheat detection method, has loudly accused some others of cheating, and FIDE are both unconvinced of the truth of the allegations and very unhappy he didn’t do this through proper channels. He also doesn’t appear to have co-operated with the investigation.

I suspect this is a standard mathematical “it is computationally impossible to do this in the general case despite it being entirely feasible in many cases”.

I don’t think anyone in the business thinks that the markets are 100% efficient, just that they are sufficiently efficient that beating them is a genuinely hard job requiring heavy, expensive analysis.

I feel like this is a bit of a disappointment. Sonnet 4 was a clear step above Opus 3.x, while this is a lot muddier.

Feels very like Squaredle.

The language used in this press release is borderline hilarious. It’s simultaneously trying to tell you how great it is while also telling it’s not THAT great. Nothing to worry about, move along.

And enforcement cannot work if you’ve captured all three estates.

I love CS Lewis. I don’t massively love his name being invoked by a bunch of people intent on ripping the chest out of America.

I feel like "Company ditches staff in favour of AI" stories currently fit into two categories 1) The CEO is actually ditching staff for other reasons like falling revenue, but "going AI first" sounds a lot better 2) The CEO is making a mistake.

I fail to see what the difference between the distillation described in the article and the distillation described by Bartz vs Anthropic.

I'm thinking it's rapidly not becoming "can you find a security issue in XYZ?" and "what is the cost of finding a security issue in XYZ?". I want to know what the spend was.

That's both extremely neat and, for the time being, extremely hard for me to get my head around. I got it round monads, so I imagine it's just a matter of time!

It's not just for choice of model, you can use it for your prompting as well (basically anything to do with your setup). And yes, running evals is expensive and mostly of use to people with serious spend.

US controls on cryptography software lasted _20 years_. If there's something I'm absolutely certain of, and I'm certain of very little in the fields of AI and of politics, it's that Fable will be utterly irrelevant in 20 years time.

Look, I’m not an AI hater, but AI is… not great at multi-threading code. And having it analyse multi-threaded code proves nothing because… it’s not good at multi-threaded code. This isn’t entirely shocking because I’m not good at it either and need to write in some very particular ways to have even a hope of being correct. But basically, unless it was written by a genuine expert, I wouldn’t want to even glance at this PR. And it wasn’t.