Exactly. Use a fancy expressive structure if you want, but don't try to abstract away the mapping between that and the general-purpose code that it relies on. "Each domain has its own rules"? How would I even know where to look for those?
Yes, these comments are necessary pushback against the habit of these disciplines to push interventions that don't work because their evidentiary standards are bad.
Surprised to see no discussion of other data structures like dicts/maps, or arrays of arbitrary type. Hopefully they'd be a straightforward extension. IME, apps need collaborative data structures more often than they need pure collaborative text editing.
The motivating examples (update validation, partial loading, higher-level operations) are interesting, but I don't see a strong case that the reason Yjs etc. lack these features is the underlying CRDT implementation, as opposed to these features being intrinsically difficult to build.
The flipside: it's equally hard for people who assume AI is safe to establish empirical criteria for safety and behavior. Neither side of the argument has a strong empirical basis, because we know of no precedent for an event like the rise of non-biological intelligence.
If AGI happens, even in retrospect, there may not be a clear line between "here is non-AGI" and "here is AGI". As far as we know, there wasn't a dividing line like this during the evolution of human intelligence.
LLMS don't have to be smart enough to be AGI. They just have to be smart enough to create AGI. And if creating something smarter than yourself sounds crazy, remember that we were created by simpler ancestors that we now effortlessly dominate.
> Don’t all ISPs have retention notices? Probably not (for the reasons above), but this is not public information, and ISPs and others subject to retention notices face statutory prohibitions on disclosure.
> If all Internet access providers were subject to retention notices, wouldn’t it be easier to say that? There would be no need to dance around issues of secrecy, or explain why the list of notice recipients cannot be published. The fact that the Home Office chooses to take this approach undermines the claim that all providers have notices.
This source appears to be engaging in wishful thinking.
"The paucity of adequate studies, particularly related to long‐term use of A. muricata supplements, currently does not allow the establishment of a safe intake level."
"Cognitive performance assessed with the MDRS worsens above a cumulative consumption threshold of 0.2 fruit‐years of Annonaceae fruit/juice (ie, one fruit every 5 days for 1 year) or with consumption of any quantity of Annonaceae herbal tea."
"Pawpaw fruit contains high concentrations of annonacin, which is toxic to nerve cells. In addition there have been case reports of possibly related nerve toxicity. Therefore, chronic use should be avoided."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/19/japan