I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription today in favor of using Grok. It’s literally the difference between me never using ChatGPT to using Grok all the time, and the only way I can explain it is twofold:
1. The output from Grok doesn’t feel constrained. I don’t know how much of this is the marketing pitch of it “not being woke”, but I feel it in its answers. It never tells me it’s not going to return a result or sugarcoats some analysis it found from Reddit that’s less than savory.
2. Speed. Jesus Christ ChatGPT has gotten so slow.
Can’t wait to pay for Grok. Can’t believe I’m here. I’m usually a big proponent of just sticking with the thing that’s the most popular when it comes to technology, but that’s not panning out this time around.
I really wish the release videos made things a ~tad~ bit less technical. I know quantum computers are still very early so the target audience is technical for this kind of release, but I can’t help wonder how many more people would be excited and pulled in if they made the main release video more approachable.
If you have programming experience, you might find this interesting: back in 2019, when Google announced achieving quantum supremacy, I worked on a personal project to study the basics of quantum computing and share my learnings with others in my blog:
> Is the solution really to replace even more workers by capital, or do we have an issue with how we measure value that we should fix first?
I have more faith in our ability to solve world peace and AGI than I do in us getting to a more objective way to measure value that everyone can agree and adhere to.
It doesn't have to be more objective, it just has to not run away.
The problem with the wealth-weighted-value that gets optimized by capitalism is that the gini coefficient tips the optimization process from being about doing what other people want to being about doing what rich people want. Rich people mostly want to get paid for being rich, of course, so they pump assets to increase their wealth. Their weight goes up, the objective function pumps assets harder, their weight goes up, the objective function pump assets harder... and gini heads to 1 and you return to a palace economy.
A note of optimism: we've been here before, shortly after the industrial revolution. We've fixed this before, even though Marx predicted that we couldn't. We should all be trying to figure out how to make sure that next time the USA gets neo-Roosevelt, not neo-Hitler or neo-Lenin.
I don’t really understand what you’re proposing. How would we fix things to “not run away”. If we’re not trying to value fix to be more objective, what guiding principle should we follow?
On the wealth weighting, I’m a fan of a 100% inheritance tax tbh. I’m in the “top 1%” and I don’t plan on giving my kids more than a great upbringing and education. I’m not giving them any additional cash injection. I think that solves a lot of the wealth weighting problem by shortening the lifecycle of capital holds, but I don’t know if I’ll ever live to see it (or some form of it like inheritance caps).
I'm afraid that "a more objective way to measure value that everyone can agree and adhere to" is necessary to solve AGI (as opposed to getting extincted by one), and world peace will kind of follow naturally.
After going through a bunch of evolutions using Docker as co-founder/engineer #1 at a startup to > 100 engineers, hard agree on this take.
One other reason to not overbloat your images (besides physical storage cost and perf) is security considerations. If you find yourself in a place where you need to meet enterprise security standards, keeping more dependencies in your image and linked to your app code widens your risk vector for vulnerabilities.
You can inject keys into the running container by passing them as environment variables during the docker run command, ideally supplied via a secrets manager.
I understand that at a high level, but the implementation is where I get lost and where I'd love an article like this to tell me how to do it and how to deploy securely vs develop locally. Most of the guides I've seen involving a secrets manager assume you're very comfortable with Docker, but I'm still trying to figure it out and need some hand holding like this article does.
I think this is mostly because that's out of scope of responsibility of docker, and docker compose (for the most part) is only a local dev tool without prod concerns.
For deploying docker containers to production, and how to manage secrets, you'd need to look to that container orchestrator's recommendations. EG K8S secrets. It doesn't make too much sense to put an example of how to use production secrets in a docker guide, because those belong in a K8S/GKS/EKS/DO etc tutorial.
Docker's "interface" is how to accept env variables, it's other parts of the system that need to set those variables.
I wish there was some secrets manager that would give me a per-project env file in somewhere ephemeral like /run (bonus points for it disappearing when the computer is locked).
Keeping a .env file around still is still a vulnerability if a device goes missing.
Not a ban. A restriction. Which does have evidence of reducing use.
> There is no way to draw a boundary around any behavior other than theft without comparing outcomes to a subjectively valuable ideal
Isn’t this more to do with a society’s viewpoint on moral subjectivity vs. objectivity? And not the act itself?
> It's a costly systemic virus we wield out of desperation
Desperation or practicality? There is always going to be a downside to any prohibitive law put into effect. But should there be no prohibitive laws to curb self harm in a society? To reflect the values of that society? That seems extremely idealistic.
> Social media's most fundamental problem is… it creates an environment that allows people to sidestep existing restrictions
I think it’s pretty well understood that this is not social media’s most fundamental problem. I don’t think sidestepping porn guardrails (for instance) is anywhere near as damaging as ever-radicalizing echo chambers or exposure to ideas that accelerate depression and anxiety and contribute to low self worth and self harm.
I’m sorry but this whole post just comes off as overly idealistic and completely missing the point of how harmful social media is to everyone (but especially children). I actually sympathize with the war on drugs creating more issues around drug use, but I don’t think we should then conclude that all restrictions are bad and cause more harm.
First, thank you for responding to my points. I've read every reply in this thread and I think you're the first.
Criminalization is criminalization. If you don't like word "ban", please feel free to substitute "restriction", "regulation", "guardrails", or any other euphemism. A liquor restriction is drug prohibition even if you're still allowed to trade beer.
Yes, prohibition is fundamentally a conflict about state subjectivity. This is a critically under-developed aspect of virtually all democratic constitutions. That's not weird; those were developed before modern philosophy, and industry has in no small way distracted us from the development and implementation of philosophy. Industry has simultaneously provided a vector for a vast host of terrifying emerging behaviors. One of my central concerns is that prohibition is a vicious pattern that reemerges in a wide variety of domains. That's a key component of its entrenchment: we're usually too concerned with the symptom—perceived harmful behavior—to address the disease: moralization of the state and therefore the application of force.
Regarding pragmatism, let's remember that most prohibitive systems begin very reasonably: small, well-intentioned limits being enforced uniformly with apparent marginal success. The fundamental problem is that it's never as effective as everyone wants to believe (but few dare to promise) it will be. In combination with the precedent created by the first generation, this is a strong incentive for further prohibition. The topic at hand is a great example. I don't want to make doomsayer predictions but there's no way Norway is finished increasing the severity and complexity of their social media restrictions.
Prohibited behaviors are eventually driven underground, breaking the state's ability to measure them or track their mutation. When they reemerge, they are more concentrated. In The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton argues that crystal meth, crack cocaine, and the ever-expanding list of synthetic opioids with microscopic lethal doses are all the direct product of prohibition, especially law enforcement "crackdown".
You think Facebook was bad? Have you seen what people get up to on the image boards of the disenfranchised? Same concept. Norway's youth will flock to them. The state will crack down. I don't want to speculate about what will happen next.
There's much more to say on pragmatism and the quantifiable costs of increasing legal complexity and eroding the prosecutor's obligation to prove criminal intent. If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend The Overcriminalization of Social and Economic Conduct by Paul Rosenzweig.
Finally, you mentioned the specific perceived harms associated with social media. As I said, I think this is a narrow view. I don't want to discuss those any more than I want to discuss the harms of eating Tide Pods (Big Bleach Kills Kids! Parents Outraged! Twitch.TV Does Damage Control!) but I would like to point out that echo chambers and depression and anxiety are issues that exist independently of social media. When I say that the fundamental problem is an environment, I mean technology creates autonomous microcosms for which our existing defenses against the horrors of human existence are not adapted. In my view, the least wasteful solution is to develop the tools and skills required to navigate these microcosms.
I wouldn't ban prohibition, by the way. That would be paradoxical. I would focus on enhancing the democratic ability to dismantle legislation that didn't work according to the professed standards of its own advocates. It's funny being called an idealist for railing against moralization. I see how that perspective works, but please believe that my concerns are justice and viability.
This is a far more even response than I would have expected. I have many questions, especially about which “modern philosophies” are needed to help curb addictive behaviors at a state level. I think we’d both agree to the fact that most behavior-curbing laws begin small and then incrementally increase control. I think we also critically agree that having a mechanism to remove legislature if it’s not working is so important.
Regardless of that, I don’t think prohibition or criminalization is a bad thing. The government is defined by their ability to monopolize violence. To say we should never wield that violence against certain behaviors as a vote of the culture, I just don’t buy.
Immigrating into the US is notoriously difficult. There is a ton of demand. The US does not do even a mediocre job of prioritizing this demand, but it feels like the argument “I’m a normal person so I didn’t think about this” is rooted in lala land. If I was trying to immigrate into any other country (let alone the US), I would immediately and primarily think about how marriage might impact the status of my application. It would literally be the first thing I’d think of.
Not saying it’s wrong to get married as you’re trying to immigrate into the most competitive country in the world, but you do assume responsibility that this might impact your application.
1. The output from Grok doesn’t feel constrained. I don’t know how much of this is the marketing pitch of it “not being woke”, but I feel it in its answers. It never tells me it’s not going to return a result or sugarcoats some analysis it found from Reddit that’s less than savory.
2. Speed. Jesus Christ ChatGPT has gotten so slow.
Can’t wait to pay for Grok. Can’t believe I’m here. I’m usually a big proponent of just sticking with the thing that’s the most popular when it comes to technology, but that’s not panning out this time around.