This was an enjoyable read.

It seems Buddhism has followed the same path as any other religion/practice of the same age.

I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD, just as I imagine Scientology in 1,000 years will have evolved.

Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?

The teachings of the Buddha explicitly encouraged it. Buddhism is the only religion I know of that instructs you to fully abandon it, as once you’ve fully grokked what it has to teach… you won’t need it any more.

IIRC the Buddha said it was like carrying the oar of a boat: once you have used it to get you to your destination (nibbhana), carrying it is needless.

> Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso mahato udakassa ... ‘yan-nūnāhaṃ tiṇakaṭṭhapaṇṇaṃ saṅkhaṇiyaṃ saṅkhaṇeyyaṃ, tenañ-ca mahaudakaṃ abhinaveyyaṃ hatthipādena vā aṅgapādena vā ... Atha kho so puriso taṃ kulhiraṃ āropetvā pāre gaccheyya. Tam-enaṃ loko ‘kiṃsu, bho, karissati kulhirena pāraṃ gato’ti? Evaṃ, bhikkhave, dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāsi: ‘pāraṅgamanaṃ dhammaṃ, anupagamma dhamma’ti.

> सेय्यथापि भिक्खवे पुरिसो महतो उदकस्स ओरिमतटे ठितो एतस्मिं चत्ते ओरिमा तटा कल्लंणं भयंवरं, परमा तटा निब्बयं भयंविरं, न च नावाय संयताय न च पुल्लेन गन्तब्बं। तं किमन्तरेन। यन्नुनाहं तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तं हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोमि। अथ खो सो पुरिसो तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तो हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोति। तं पच्छा समन्ततो गन्त्वा पारे गच्छति। तं एं लोको किं नु खो करिस्सति कूल्हिरेन पारा गतो ती? एवमेव खो भिक्खवे धम्मो देशितो अजानासि। पारं गमनेन धम्मं नुपगम्म धम्मं।

Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22) of the Majjhima Nikāya, part of the Pali Canon.

(MN 22, सेय्यथापि... से अंतまで)

i really like that shunryū suzuki quoting dogen talking about "one continuous mistake" is a complete and utter misquote.

internalised understanding, attitudes, views etc. are more important that being able to recite things from a book.

I think people are learning what actually makes a good question.

Ask yes/no questions, get bad answers.

Ask questions that start with "what" or "why," and the sycophancy loses its purchase.

> it'll admit that, yes, it wasn't being very critical, and then procede to over correct and become a complete contrarian

Which is also placating you

Yes exactly! It's very frustrating. My guess is it drives engagement. But some model that tells me what I want to hear all the time is useless.

Marc Andreesen should get HF on his own RL, because he's completely wrong.

This sounds like something Elon would say to make Grok seem "totally more amazeballs," except "anti-woke" Grok suffers from the same behavior

This is fantastic. I am doing my first-ever consumer electronics product and this would save a lot of soldering time

That’s awesome — and exactly the kind of use case I had in mind

Being able to iterate without constantly flashing hardware can save a lot of time early on.

If you end up trying it in your workflow, I’d love to hear how it goes

Humans can do a lot of things that don't require intelligence. Artificial intelligence does not need to be 100% human to be AGI.

It needs to pass the most basic concept of learning, which it can’t currently do. Probably wont ever do after listening to dario on his latest podcast run.

Where we are at today is ASI (artificial semi-intelligence). Maybe in 20 years artificial super intelligence can be achieved, but certainly not AGI.

Taking a cursory glance at neurosymbolic ai, artificial curiosity, memory, continual learning, I think you'd find that we're extremely close.

Was just at the YC launch event for this. Haven't felt this much inspiration in a while. Incredible minds confronting on tech that will change our society.

I met a guy who, for fun, started working on ARC2, and as he got the number to go up in the eval, a novel way to more efficiently move a robotic arm emerged. All that to say: chasing evals per se can have tangible real world benefits.

Talking to the ARC folks tonight, it sounds like there will be an ARC-4,5,6,etc. I mean of course there will be.

But with them will be an increasing expectation that these models can eventually figure things out with zero context, and zero pretraining; you drop a brain into any problem and it'll figure out how to dig its way out.

That's really exciting.

>Talking to the ARC folks tonight, it sounds like there will be an ARC-4,5,6,etc. I mean of course there will be.

Quintessential goal post moving...

If you read the charter of the eval (or any eval, really), this statement is pretty silly.

The whole point of each eval version is to identify a chunk of challenges that humans do well that AI can't. When AI gets to ~80, you move to the next chunk. When you run out of challenges, you have AGI.

HN occasionally devolves into “supremely pedantic and nitpicky” mode. Today is one of those days.

> ecosystem

To call an ecosystem superficial evidence is puzzling to me. The ecosystem is -everything- for an operating system.

Developers, apps, distribution, users; all of it is ecosystem.

I don't understand. Are you blaming Apple for turning your volume up too high?

For me, I think it has more to do with length of exposure. Certainly my fault. Perhaps analogous to social media use and smart phones. To avoid temptation I try to limit then restrict my usage. It seems that some people “blame” side effects of social media usage on social media companies? Is that different for you? Sometimes, it can take some time to realize you’re dealing with a more potent form of a similar experience.

This is simply supply chain updates marketed as an upgrade, similar to how Apple's Vision Pro "2" was just their current chip line shoved into the same form factor.

It represents the company effectively forgetting about it as as a product line, but leveraging the latest chips to keep them selling, even in small quantities.

If they truly invested any amount into updating these things, they would reflect the many lessons learned from the 1.0 product. To have a 2.0's form be 1:1 with the 1.0 is lazy at best.