yeck

I agree.

There are many python packages that have other dependencies not managed by Python package management. The pain of figuring out what those implicit dependencies are is effectively removed for users when configured as a nix shell.

I've played around with it a little bit, but not enough to make any judgements on it. Something like devbox could be the sort of thing to make nix-shell accessible enough to see wider adoption.

Cool, that definitely sounds like a welcome improvement.

There is definitely a learning investment in order to write good Nix expressions. But, if you write a good nix shell expression for your project, other devs should be able to jump in without really needing to understand those Nix expressions and still get a working environment.

Nix package manager's `nix-shell` is something I wish more people knew about. Nix is gaining some popularity, but people often think of using it has to be a really big commitment, like changing your Linux distro to NixOS or replacing your dotfiles with a Nix-based one (using the Nix package manager).

What I wish more people knew was that you don't need to do those things to get value from Nix. Create project specific dev shells that install the packages (at the correct versions) to work with that project can almost replace 90% of the docs for getting setup to work on a project.

I was using Nim for some of last years Advent of Code problems. I was mostly liking the syntax. Was a bit bother by the standard library have a snake case and camel case reference for each function (if I'm remember that correctly).

At the time nimble also required me to have NPM to install the the Nim package manager, Nimble. This was not ideal, but looking at [the nimble project install docs](https://github.com/nim-lang/nimble#installation) it seems like it is now package with the language.

Might try dusting it off for some AoC puzzles this year :)

It seems hard to imagine a board member that is involved in another tech business not having a conceivable conflict of interests. LLMs are on a course to disrupt pretty much all forms of knowledge work after all. Also big implications for hardware manufacturing and supply chains.

Separately, a person familiar with the matter told The Verge that the board never received a letter about such a breakthrough and that the company’s research progress didn’t play a role in Altman’s sudden firing.

This isn't a refute. All we can say now is that there are conflicting sources. There isn't a way to determine which one is correct based on this.

So we have sources claiming there is a letter, and another source claiming there is not. Feel like some people would need to start going on the record before anything might reasonably be determined from this.

Where do you see it being rolled back?

If they actually have AGI, then being at the helm of could represent more power than any amount of money could. Money just gives you access to human labour, which would suddenly be massively devalued for those with access to AGI.

Sam even recently alluded to something that could have been a reference to this. "Witnessing he veil of ignorance being pulled back" or something like that.

Elon was once "in possession" (influential investor and part of the board) of OpenAI, but it was since taken from him and he is evidently bitter about it.

Depends who gets onto the board. There are probably a lot of forces interested in ousting him now, so he'd need to do an amazing job vetting the new board members.

My guess is that he has less than a year, based on the my assumption that there will be constant pressure placed on the board to oust him.

I was about to say this. Only correct answer.

In my immediate family I have 3 people that have taken multi-year periods away from work for health reasons. Two are mental health related and the other severe arthritis. 2 of those 3 will probably never work again for the rest of their lives.

I've worked with a contractor that went into a coma during covid. Nearly half a year in a coma, then rehab for many more months. Guy is working now, but not shape.

I don't know the stats, but I'd be surprised if long medical leaves are as rare as you think.

Oh, that's sounds like it could be a lot of fun. Thanks for sharing. I'll remember that for when my little one is a bit older :)

the letter’s signees include Ilya Sutskever

_Big sigh_.

Yeah. I need to take a break from theory crafting on this one. Too many surprises that have made it hard to draw a coherent line.

They are both just data being made hard to read, though. You could pretty much sum up the "risks" of encryption as: you want to read some data that someone else didn't want you to read. Which means you might fail to detect something, or fail to prove something as easily as if you could read that data. While we could enumerate specific examples of scenarios that fit the generalization, I think we are talking about something pretty narrow. It is also not really a new problem. Historically communication has been impossible to snoop on at scale, and encryption exists to maintain a semblance of past privacy in the present.

Lol not sure where I want to take this and it's getting pretty late...

I don't really know if he was betrayed because the relationships and communication between Sam and the rest of the board that voted him out isn't exactly public. To use language feels like you are already taking despite lacking information.

Anyhow, I just was using the Caesar example because it was an memorable example that stuck out to me.

And yet no one is talking about "encryption safety

Okay, you are getting me off topic, but this is totally not the case. Hasn't governments been especially interesting in dealing with encryption lately? UK or EU (can't remember which) being most recently raising the pitchforks.

Anyway, the more important thing for me to point out is that AI is anticipated to possess exponential properties that technology like encryption does not have. Encryption is predictable while AI is not.

Edit: fixed typo

Musk fired most of the engineers. I'd be pretty surprised if we see the level of attrition at OpenAI getting within an order of magnitude of that. We are just making predictions, though. I could be way off the mark and many more people are willing to jump ship than I imagine.

As for Microsoft, if they let OpenAI go, then what? Does Google pick them up? Elon? They are still looking to invent AGI, so I'd be surprised if no one wants to take advantage of that opportunity. I'd expect Microsoft to be aware of this and weigh into their calculus.

Those are not the only things to research, but I wouldn't assume that capability-base research would stop. I mean, they want to create AI to perform AI alignment, so their road map includes capability research.

The for-profit bender that OpenAI was on appears to have been more of the issue. It's one thing to create greater capabilities for enhancing the rate of research, and another rushing those capabilities to market.

I'm actually pretty impressed that they are sticking to their (non-profit) charter against so much pressure. While this was not a "clean" maneuverer I'm not really in a position to judge, given my lack of context. Perhaps there could have been a better execution, but it was the willingness to act when it would not be easy that I think matters most.

I'd say it sounds like they want to go faster with research and slower with commercializing the outputs of the research.

Well, despite what Musk did, X (Twitter?) has still been limping along for quite a while now. While more abrupt and surprising, this doesn't seem nearly as bad as that.

Thank god

I get the sense that there was not a lot of time to do this before Sam was too difficult to remove and appropriated the brand and assets.

From the reading on this I did this evening (which was much more than I probably should have) I had seen it suggested that this might have been a limited window in time where the board was small enough to pull this off. It was 9 members not long ago before being reduced down to 6 (where 4 of them collaborated). Allegedly Sam was looking to grow the board back up.

Hard to say what the impact on access to talent will be. I know people working in AI that wouldn't consider working at OpenAI out of perceived recklessness. At least one that I've been speaking with during this weekend said that this made them more open to the idea.