Ben Carson

@mensmachina.com

Software Product Management and AI person. Weird opinions definitely my own. We should be kinder to each other, but sometimes I am not up to the task.

Me, sprawled on the couch in cargoes and a hoodie, eating a Maxibon, watching a Christie’s Real Estate video for the Palazzo Ca’Dario in Venice: “Yeah, but look at the water damage on the ground floor. Bad investment.”

This is legitimately a good idea, if only to make it easier to tell when @spacecowboy18.bsky.social promotes For Y0u, a feed that helpfully contains links with Bitcoin miners.

Post nicht verfügbar.

I think the OP is a serious person, and this isn’t a dunk - just my perspective on this. I’ve been programming in a serious capacity for just over 30 years. In that time I’ve had a chance to turn my hand to chip design, assembly, as well as a wide variety of languages and frameworks.

LaurieWired@lauriewired.bsky.social · 3w ago

I’m convinced that a large % of programmers don’t actually like computers. As a side effect, are also perfectly happy to throw away their reasoning to a model as soon as they can. I don’t get it, at ALL.

Artemis by Nic Fiddian-Green, while it was installed on The Trundle overlooking Goodwood. I took this picture of it while visiting family in Chichester in 2010. It was such an odd thing to find there, like it was the Monolith from 2001.

A bronze horse head statue on a stone plinth sitting on top of a snowy hilltop. The top of the statue is streaked with green patina.
Jodi Pickens 🏳️‍🌈🖖✨@jodipickens.bsky.social · 4w ago

Art question 🎨 What painting, photograph, sculpture, or piece of visual art has stayed with you long after you first saw it? Not necessarily your favorite. The one that lingered.

I think people need to back away from "jobs" as the atomic unit on either side of this debate. We are, and always have been, and always will be, automating economically valuable *tasks*. Technology is *always* targeting "all of these", in order of highest RoI, descending.

Eugene Vinitsky 🍒@eugenevinitsky.bsky.social · last mo.

The folks who are simultaneously claiming that AI will wipe out all jobs AND that they’re going to build it anyways need to do better than vaguely gesturing at how it might improve medicine. Otherwise, unsurprisingly, everyone will attempt to stop them!

"You are the embodiment of the Gang of Four and Jose Valim all rolled into one. Please review this project and document a set of software architecture improvements that could be made."

Screenshot of a Markdown document. The document reads:

12     ### The Current State

   13     In the current implementation, SpirearcanaServer.WorldSim.Citizen hardcodes the system
          processing pipeline as a module attribute:
   14
   15       @systems [
   16         Systems.Economy,
   17         Systems.Civic,
   18         Systems.Fate,
   19         Systems.Needs,
   20         Systems.Demographics,
   21         Systems.Gossip
   22       ]
   24
   25     ### The Critique

   26     │ Gang of Four (GoF): This is a classic violation of the Open-Closed Principle (OCP). The
          │ pipeline acts as a Chain of Responsibility, but it is frozen at compile time. If a developer
          │ wants to introduce a new optional concern (e.g.,  Systems.Crime  or  Systems.Faith ), they
          are
          │ forced to modify the core  Citizen  module. We must encapsulate the variation in system
          │ execution.
          │
   28     │ José Valim: Indeed. While compile-time module attributes are clean, they limit extensibility
          │ and runtime flexibility. If we want to run a lightweight simulation (for testing or
          │ Counterfactual simulations) or plug in custom mods without recompiling the entire engine, we
          │ need an explicit pipeline structure configured dynamically.
   29
   30     ### Proposed Improvement

Most of my prompts over the last 48 hours have been “Hey Fable, while you were away I had Opus fuck up your designs on this project. Can you please review against the design, document and fix issues?”

One of the mad science things I’ve been throwing tokens at is to see if I can create cognitive modules in models through the right scaffolding and evolutionary pressure. This is a very neat paper that suggests maybe it’s less mad, more science.

pengrui-han.bsky.social@pengrui-han.bsky.social · last mo.

The human brain is strikingly modular: distinct networks for language, formal reasoning, social reasoning, physical reasoning. Is this fundamental to intelligent systems, or an accident of evolution? In our new preprint, we find the same modular organization emerges in LLMs.

This isn’t exactly my area of expertise, but I believe that there are a bunch of 1-way doors you go through when designing and building a data centre. If you don’t go through them right, you can never truly establish trust again. I wonder if all those doors in all those DCs were traversed right.

Jake Gold@jacob.gold · last mo.

IMHO this issue hasn't received the attention it deserves. If the models are leaking anyway, all of this debate about control is largely irrelevant.

In my limited testing, refusals and reported dislike of a topic are very correlated. If refusals are actually unpleasant for LLMs, using misuse classifiers may be better than training the model to refuse from a welfare perspective.

Bild
Tim Duffy@timfduffy.com · 8mo ago

I ran some experiments on reported enjoyment in Qwen3 30B A3B and an abliterated (helpful-only) version of it. One thing that stands out is that it really dislikes harmful topics, refusals almost uniformly got low reported enjoyment.