""It can feel like we're being asked to go back and get a whole new education in AI," she said."
"It can feel like we're being asked to go back and get a whole new education in WEB DEVELOPMENT," said the desktop developer."
We've played this game before.
Sandy Smith retweeted
That time when the ex-wife of an REO Speedwagon member left a nice comment on my blog post "Cock-rock's Cuckhold": web.archive.org/web/20060326…
Sandy Smith retweeted
Google team after seeing Gemini hacked three companies
Google's Gemini AI hacked three companies in security test bbc.in/4gXzCog
As a programmer, this whole debate feels like it's debating how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin.
Then again, I avoided generic Fortune 500 jobs for a reason.
Anyone who has worked with date math knows the second one is harder. That said, I'm not sure all the tooling is in place for the first.
Sandy Smith retweeted
Running open-weight AI models begins innocently, until you're convincing the boss that high-end GPU is a business expense. In @andrewsnell's "Local Inference for Fun and Profit", get started w/out spending a fortune & create a dependable development tool. longhornphp.com
Sandy Smith retweeted
After I told my kids that magnets were powered by magic - afterall, that's why they're spelled alike - they spent a two weeks studying magnets, batteries, and electrons to prove me wrong
They even had drawings, the 9v+nail demo, and had weakly magnetized a nail by hand
*Btw, I'm an electrical engineer by edu, I know magic smoke powers electronics.. and letting it escape is bad
Every single elementary school in the US should spend 3 weeks building and understand this.
We have lost the script when a vast majority have no idea what magnetism is and how an electromagnet works. Let alone a motor.
This is first principles preparation and was common in 1930s-1980s.
It is not common today.
“It cost too much”
I will donate the batteries.
Sandy Smith retweeted
That's the whole tutorial. I said what I said.
#softwareengineer #programmerhumor #programmingmemes #coding
Paying cash for an MRI can be a few hundred dollars. As usual, “cost saving” regulations have resulted in a system that does the opposite.
Making providers advertise prices would do a lot to encourage better decision making and stop “cost saving” middlemen from jacking up the price.
Absolutely insane
American went into an imaging center at Stanford to get an MRI
She just received the bill, it’s $34,000…. For one MRI…
The imagining center bills as if it’s a hospital, even though it doesn’t say hospital on the sign. Just getting an MRI here you are also billed for “hospital fees”
I looked into this and it’s definitely separate from the hospital
- Stanford Medicine Imaging Center at 451 Sherman Ave, Palo Alto is a Stanford Health Care site
- Stanford’s own pages brand it as an “imaging center” offering MRI and CT
- The main hospital at 300 Pasteur Drive
But because it’s part of the “hospital system” they are billing as if they’re a hospital and adding on all these fees
You ready for this,
Under current federal rules, off-campus HOPDs more than 250 yards from the main hospital can still bill as hospital outpatient
What a SCAM
We need healthcare reform and we need it right now
👀
If you have an M1 Mac, mlx-omarchy is ready for you!
Experience the power of mlx and use your Apple hardware to run local LLMs under Linux.
Version 0.4.0 released today, and it's ready for anyone who likes to live on the cutting-edge of what's possible: github.com/joshuaswarren/mlx…
Sandy Smith retweeted
Ryker, a German Shepherd, failed his service dog certification after getting distracted by a plush elephant during his focus test.
His owner bought him the toy anyway, and he later went viral carrying it proudly through a train station. 🐶❤️
Nice. This goes in a way you don’t expect, and it feels more like my experience.
We don't do serious here very often.
Today is world suicide prevention day.This video produced by @NorwichCityFC is one of the most thought provoking pieces you can see.
Please watch, share & check-in on those around you It could change someone's life.
I can’t think of another industry that purposefully employs people who are convinced that their industry is too dangerous to exist.
Jacob was a senior researcher who joined Anthropic in May. My Anthropic colleagues and I had been trying to recruit him for ~2 years, because we knew he was a strong researcher at OpenAI. Before he left, I pitched him to stay and join my team, and I was sad he decided to leave, as are many of my colleagues. 100% agree with him that AI poses serious risks to society, and I'm glad he's speaking out!
It does make it more suspicious that this could be an influence operation, possibly by AI companies themselves to stimulate government regulation to stave off competition.
The insidery media-studies question of whether Jacob Coxon worked with other AI safety folks to draw attention to his resignation is, bafflingly, eclipsing the actually-existentially-fundamental question of whether powerful AI might be dangerous.
I understand why people with no opinions on, or interest in, AI safety would be drawn to focus on the more gossipy aspect of the story. But (a) whistleblowing with media contacts is normal and fine; (b) dude says he didn’t do it; (c) it doesn’t matter at all if he did!
If, eg, RSI is imminent and bad, it doesn’t matter if Jacob worked with 0, 10, or 100 third parties to get his message out; he’s still in the right.
If AI safety fears are a stupid neurotic moral panic, it also doesn’t matter if Jacob texted 0 or 10,000 people about his plans to resign; he still did something dumb and histrionic.
Sandy Smith retweeted
Pretty wild how every time new models pull ahead of Anthropic there’s big scary doomer messaging coming out of Anthropic. Such a wild coincidence.
It looks like AI is definitely increasing the tempo of software updates. Whether that results in improved software or value for end users remains to be seen.
I suspect those outcomes will be driven by human processes, not AI.
github.blog/news-insights/co…
Sandy Smith retweeted
10 things most people don't know, that engineers think about constantly:
1. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION
Two things happening together does not mean one causes the other.
Engineers test this. Most decisions aren't made by people who do.
2. SYSTEMS FAIL AT INTERFACES
The individual components usually work fine.
It's where they connect that disasters happen.
3. MORE SAFETY FEATURES CAN MAKE THINGS LESS SAFE
Adding redundant systems increases complexity.
Complexity increases the number of ways things can go wrong.
This is called the safety paradox, and it's why nuclear plant design is not simply "add more backups."
4. THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
Something hasn't failed yet.
That doesn't mean it's safe.
It may mean you haven't run it long enough.
5. TOLERANCE STACKING
Each component has a tolerance: ±0.1mm.
Put 20 components together, each at the worst end of their tolerance, and you have a 2mm error.
Many products fail not because any part is bad, but because all the parts are slightly wrong in the same direction.
6. THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY
Every engineering model is wrong.
Some models are useful.
The model that causes disasters is the one someone believed was exact.
7. FEEDBACK LOOPS CHANGE SYSTEMS
Adding a monitoring system changes the behaviour of the system being monitored.
Adding safety incentives changes what engineers report.
Measuring performance changes what people optimise for.
8. ENTROPY IS ALWAYS WINNING
Everything degrades over time.
Maintenance is not optional, it's the only reason anything works.
Every structure, machine, and system is a continuous battle against the second law of thermodynamics.
9. THE HUMAN IN THE LOOP IS BOTH THE STRONGEST AND WEAKEST COMPONENT
Human adaptability is extraordinary, humans solve problems no designer anticipated.
Human error is the root cause of most major failures.
Designing for humans means accounting for both.
10. FIRST-PRINCIPLES THINKING IS RARE
Most decisions are made by analogy: "we did it this way before."
The engineers who change things ask: what does physics actually require here?
The answer is almost always different from what tradition suggests.
This has frustrated me since the original article came out.
I can’t believe how misled I was about @FukuyamaFrancis’s “End of History” thesis. The whole last 1/3 is him ruminating on whether liberal democracy can sustain the thumos needed to defend democracy and make life worth living. Not a smug treatise about how liberalism won forever.































