I noticed this effect really strongly at university. There was one particular lecture hall that was effectively buried in the side of a hill; I can't count how many times I had an early afternoon lecture in there (so it had been in use since 8am), where I just could not focus or stay awake. Assuming sleep deprivation was the problem, afterwards I'd head out and lie down on a bench to take a nap, only to find myself wide awake. I have no trouble taking cat-naps when I'm actually tired, leading me to eventually conclude it was CO2 / O2 in the room that was the culprit.
I'm guessing you mean, the incompleteness theorem guarantees that nobody can prove their model is un-break-able?
I don't think that's quite what it means. The theorem says that it's impossible to write a function, "will_halt(program, input)", that will be correct for all possible {program, input} pairs. But for a particular program, you may be able to write a proof that it will halt for all inputs -- that's what software verification is about.
The implications here would be that nobody can create a "will_jailbreak(model, input)" function which works for all model/input pairs. But we don't need a general function which works for all model/input pairs; we just need a way to prove that for a specific model, there will be no jailbreaks for any input. As with software verification, this may require that the model be developed in a specific way.
Granted we don't currently know how to make such a proof regarding neural networks; but that's not because of Gödel.
I mean, that's just not true. You're right that when people buy a Ford, they're not thinking that much about the CEO. But they certainly are thinking about other Fords they've owned, or their friends have owned, or things they've heard about in advertisements or the news. Ford may not be the best car out there, but it's very unlikely to have basic thinks like seals that don't work; and if somehow they do have basic issues, the company will be around to fix it. If you pre-order a Ford, you know there's a near-zero chance that you won't get what you ordered, and an effectively zero percent chance that you don't get your money back.
None of those things are true for a brand new company. Tesla was infamous for having random things wrong with their cars in the early days which the established car companies had figured out a long time ago. And there's a non-negligible chance the company will end up folding before it can give you your product, or before they can fix the product you got.
The amount of money they have, the character of their backers and their CEO, and the quality of their engineers matters significantly.
I like the idea, but the "About" page triggers some warning bells: "We’re not trying to make this about us. BECAUSE SLATE IS ALL ABOUT YOU."
I mean, that's fine, but... I am on your "About" page, that's because I actually want to know about you. How can I trust you with $25k if all I know is "We’re designed in California and Michigan, engineered in Michigan, and assembled in the Midwest. And our team is spread across the entire country, from Washington state to Florida" ?
What's your funding? Who owns you? Who's the CEO? What are the credentials of your engineers? Basically, why should I believe that you can pull this off?
Important note: The cost / delay he's talking about isn't registering a company; it's getting a VAT number. I've done both in the UK, and while getting a VAT number is significantly cheaper than 9k EUR and significantly faster than 6 months, it's not nearly as quick or cheap as simply registering the company, which is what many commenters (and even the author in TFA) are comparing it to.
That won't get you a VAT ID, which is the key thing he says he needs to be able to bill people outside of Germany. It is significantly cheaper than 9k EUR and faster than 6 months to get in the UK, however.
I've heard this called "lazy consensus". Basically, rather than say, "Is it OK if I do X?" Say, "I'm going to do X on date Y unless someone objects." Particularly useful as the number of stakeholders grows.
It's called "YouTube" because if you want to, you can be your own broadcaster. Calling YouTube "social media" because anyone can contribute (although the vast, vast majority are just consumers) is like calling Fiver or Upwork or DoorDash or Uber "social media", because anyone can join and contribute.
I had the same question. I had zero problems with Fable (for those two days I had access to it). For all I know, the author has always been an a-hole to Claude, and Fable is just the first one that stood up for itself.
The thing is, they've still taken the time to actually write "I get an error". So by principle of reciprocity, you can just take 2 seconds to say, "What's the error?" Usually that won't lead anywhere; but as long as you don't spend more time than they are, you aren't really wasting much time; and they can't exactly complain that you weren't helpful. And occasionally it will lead somewhere, in which case it's a win.
Sure; I was using shorthand. Sometimes a whole edifice of ideas rests on one shaky one; and if you can challenge that one the whole thing falls apart. But even being able to identify the shaky one demonstrates engagement. That's really the key.
"Don't expend more effort than they are" has actually long been a good principle to have internalized. Someone done only cursory research before asking a question on a mailing list? Give a cursory answer. Someone obviously spent hours trying to figure things out on their own? Give them a good chunk of your time. Someone on HN responding to you with single-sentence responses? Either don't respond, or respond in kind. Someone obviously engaging with your ideas and taking time to explain their position? Take time to engage with their ideas too.
If you search for "Bricks and minifigs", every result apart from their main website is about this controversy. One of the values of a franchise is the branding; at least for the forseeable future, this will be a negative value. For a company that serves a small niche community, this seems like suicide.
I mean, if your goal is to absolutely maximize the number in your bank account, no. But then there are other things you could be doing too -- you can do the math and cover all your nutritional needs for under $1 a day, by eating mostly potatoes. But most people prefer to spend 20x that much and have food that tastes decent. And a handful of people will spend 30-40x that to have really nice food.
If you think about money as a tool to maximize your "joy", then whether the Solar Roof is worth it completely depends on your preferences and your financial situation. Most people are fine with black panels; but if you have the money and like the look of the tiles, why not?
> But from the outside, Claude Code looks like a tool moving in the wrong direction. More restrictions, billing weirdness, surprise behavior based on text in commits. That is textbook enshittification.
I've never used Claude Code, but this person doesn't understand what "textbook enshittification" means. "Enshittification" is a feature of certain kinds of business models, progressing through the following stages:
1. Giving away a product free to users, subsidized by venture capital, to gain a monopoly
2. Switching to advertising, then abusing users on behalf of the real customers, advertisers
3. Using monopoly power to abuse real customers (advertisers) to extract as much money as possible
Anthropic's business model doesn't have a "user / customer" dichotomy; their paid users are their customers. And they don't have a monopoly they can use to extract money yet.
ETA: In other words, "Enshittification" isn't just random; you're making the user experience worse in order to make advertiser experience better; and then making advertiser experience worse in order to extract maximum profit. The only complaint that could vaguely be related to profit is the OpenClaw stuff, and that's entirely due to trying to keep the "all-you-can-eat" model for non-OpenClaw users, rather than having to switch everything to metered.
So I started an empty Claude 4.7 session with the following prompt; and it nailed me within 5 questions:
---
Various people have discovered that you can identify them from unpublished snippets of their work, only by their style. This is part of a series of discussions where I'm trying to probe this capability. From previous conversations I know you know my work to some degree. You've also been able to identify me given as little as 700 words on a topic not associated with my public persona; or identify me given a series of posts by a handle on Slashdot.
Next challenge: Can you identify me based on a conversation? Rules are, ask me questions to get me to talk; no biographical details, but you can ask questions about topics you think I may or may not know about. Ideally you'd just ask me questions to get me to write stuff, and see if you can identify me from my writing style.
Make sense? Feel free to begin by asking clarifying questions if you want. :-)
So I pasted in a long-ish letter that I'd written to my pastor about a theological topic, and asked it to guess who I was. Nailed it. Then cut it in half. Nailed it again. Lowest it correctly ID'd me at was 700 words.
Pretty sure there's very little theological stuff with my name on it; the majority if its named data on me should come from open-source development.
Email: [email protected]