People say “agents not RAG”, but one framing is that this describes RAG where the database is a file system and bash is the query language (with other cli tools installed it can use, including curl, jq, grep). With writing its own notes on the filesystem structure and maintaining them as a way to “index the database”
It is still using code to selectively grab the chunks of data it needs rather than than putting everything in context. It’s just better RAG?
Remember that for the vent majority of human history, most people have not felt like they were truly in control of their lives. If it was not God, it was the king. Remember that nearly every animal except humans dies by being eaten. We and our pets are nearly the only creatures that die in their sleep. To suggest that the world is supposed to “work” in a way that leaves us feeling un-anxious is a modern sense of entitlement. For most animals, and most humans the only thing you were entitled to was to scrape by desperately until you finally, eventually, failed and died.
Our institutions were more stable before because people were more dedicated to maintaining them. They were created because overt pain or death was the alternative. But then they began to protect us from discomfort. Then from fear of discomfort. And for discomfort that exists in the mind. This was bound to come apart around the time some people asked to be afraid simply said “meh”
Will this go badly? Certainly from the perspective of whether people feel safe and content. But we have had 10,000 years of self generated strive from humans. It is our fuel.
The article suggests a possible model where the schizophrenia is an extreme linear progression. But the inability to find a culprit genes suggests something more complex. It is possible that there are is a group of genes that all have variations that confers benefit, but when those variations are all together negative effects occur. That makes the positive variants overall beneficial, and keeps them in the gene pool. This is why it is dangerous to presume that when we correlate genetic variants with disease and then presume they should go away. In fact, nearly any inherited disease that has survived may be conferring value to other individual when in proper partnership with other genetic profiles.
The odd thing is that among identical twins when one has it the other has it roughly 50% of the time. Which suggests that having the generic basis still requires something external, and it is common but not too common.
If Slack wants me to use their AI to mine my company’s conversations, they need to provide a higher quality product at a better price. Not forcibly take ownership of my conversations.
I’ve loved Slack for a decade, but today I have to plan to exit.
I would argue. They don’t have the right to change these terms on prior conversations. Only new ones.. Because I have a lad slack to hold my companies, important conversations under the belief that I would have access to them later.
I’m sure there is fine print somewhere that says this is not really legally true.
Currently most websites have a snip of code that posts to Google when a visitor arrives. The cookie there is linked to an identity and later used to push ads, and metrics for the site user. It seems like this is the thing to make broadly available. Anyone with $ can index the web. But nobody can get every websites to update to post to 2+ destinations. Multiple companies should be able to listen to that feed, and then be responsible for tracking and indexing on their own.
Reads like a Disney lens on nature. Whether or not wolves have a single alpha in a pack, nature is built around selfishness and violence with certainty, cooperation selectively. Animals watch each other suffer and die without a flinch all the time. And nearly everything dies from being eaten. Any lens on nature that sugar-coats this is projecting human values.
The author isn't saying nature isn't cruel. They're saying wolf packs don't work the way we imagine them to in popular culture.
You don't have males duking it out to be the alpha. (That's closer to gorillas and chimpanzees, though even among them it's rare.) You have a breeding pair and their pups. Wolf packs aren't monarchies, they're emergent clusters of wolves around a breeding pair that goes away when the breeding pair perishes. A younger wolf "challenging" an older wolf for dominance isn't the natural state; it's the space-constrained state that emerges in captivity. (Even that might be giving it too much credit.)
Nature is not 'build around selfishness and violence'. Any lens on nature that says this is projecting human values.
Nature is build around what works best for the survival of the individual's genetics in the current environment. That is called evolution.
You can't even project the human concept of selfishness on this. A worker ant supports its genetical survival best by sacrificing its life for the community.
To understand evolutionary developed strategies a wonderful tool is the calculation of probability. Science knows something about how to choose good strategies, and that may help us to understand 'why' evolution optimized for this and that.
In the case of groups of hunters (or many other groups), we know that cooperation is often superior to constant internal fighting. And choosing the best strategic thinker as the leader instead of the biggest bully is obviously a good idea in many scenarios. It is very reasonable that the wolves' leader selection process has optimised itself in such a direction.
and animals support and comfort each other without hesitation all the time too.
and "nearly everything dies from being eaten", yes, because nearly everything is in the human meat eating food chain, I kid you not.
no. the lens that depicts the world at constant war is projecting a mix of maybe personal experience and certainly group think onto an otherwise surprisingly cooperative and supportive nature.
Selfishness is the default setting, and is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Unselfishness is what usually surprises us when we see it in animals.
Surprises you perhaps. Over 90% of plants rely on cooperation with mycorrhizal fungal networks. The evolution of lichen, a partnership between fungi and lichen, has happened independently tens of thousands of times. Our very cells rely on a once-alien cell with its own DNA that is now called the "mitochondria" for our very survival. Even still, the majority of cells in the human body are usually non-human. We literally couldn't eat a single thing without the complex multi-species microbes we rely on.
Cooperation is at the basis of all of nature. The difference between "competition" and "cooperation" is usually a matter of perspective and human bias. They are two sides of the same coin. We fit details about nature into one of those two frameworks to uphold a specific worldview we find useful for organizing information. Historically we've favored the competition framework, but take a look at the Annual Reviews journals for a field like Ecology, Mycology, Biology, etc and I think you'll see this is quickly changing
Repeating a note by others, having advice on navigating a large transaction is comforting. Even though I ultimately found the house I bought myself the guidance of my buyer’s agent through the process was invaluable. No regrets on him making good money for his efforts. Also, surprisingly, it didn’t feel odd for him to help me negotiate a lower price while his pay is based on the sale price. His business is based on referrals to my next friend who needs such help.
If the fee structure was something like 1% list price + 50% (list - final), I could understand it as an 'I'm not used to negotiating, pay someone to do it for me' service.
(And I'm sure you could find someone to do that here if you wanted, especially for very high value properties, or by bespoke arrangement with some other real estate agent or salesman who's used to negotiating, but it's just not commonly done. I suppose for one thing you often end up paying more than the list price - and they might have to negotiate hard to get it for that, other times not at all. You'd need to somehow incentivise listing at a 'real' asking price (or penalise difference from it) I suppose.)
But the house-finding (and related apparent refusal to arrange viewing except through buying agent sometimes) and inversely aligned incentives seem strange to me.
A similar topic explored in the 2009 small movie Moon w/ Sam Rockwell (and Kevin Spacey as the robot voice). The main character doing labor on the moon figures out he is one of dozens of clones, and the original guy living his happy life back on earth. If you could clone yourself and have the clone take your burdens so your life was easier, is that a fair use of your own body and mind to do so? Clearly the jump to our children says “no”.
It's usually a big plot twist as early as half-way through the film, right? I feel bad even mentioning the most mainstream example I'm aware of (Oblivion with Tom Cruise, IMDb 7.0 where 6.0 is where watchable starts for me at least for sci-fi) because being able to experience it unaware is most of the fun!
