I was 7 in 1987, learned LOGO and C64 BASIC that year, and I relate to this article as well.
It feels as though a window is closing upon the feeling that software can be a powerful voice for the true needs of humanity. Those of us who can sense the deepest problems and implications well in advance are already rare. We are no more immune to the atrophy of forgetting than anyone.
But there is a third option beyond embrace or self-extinguish. The author even uses the word, implying that consumers wanted computers to be nothing more than an appliance.
The third option is to follow in the steps of fiction, the Butlerians of Dune, to transform general computation into bounded execution. We can go back to the metal and create a new kind of computer; one that does have a kind of permanence.
From that foundation, we can build a new kind of software, one that forces users to treat the machine as appliance.
It has never been done. Maybe it won't even work. But, I need to know. It feels meaningful and it has me writing my first compiler after 39 years of software development. It feels like fighting back.
This proposal feels really vague to me, I don't really understand what this actually does. Can you explain more? What exactly is a computer with permanence? What is software that forces a user to treat the computer it runs on "as an appliance"? In what ways is this different from any general-purpose computer, and what's the reason why a user would pick this over something standard?
I mean "permanence" in the same vague senses that I think the OP was hinting upon. A belief that regardless of change, the primitives remain. This is about having total confidence that abstractions haven't removed you the light-cone of comprehension.
Re: Appliance
I believe turing-completeness is over-powered, and the reason that AGI/ASI is a threat at all. My hypothesis is that we can build a machine that delivers most of the same experiences as existing software can. By constraint, some tasks would impossible and others just too hard to scale. By analogy, even a Swiss-army knife is like an appliance in that it only has a limited number of potential uses.
Re: Users
The machine I'm proposing is basically just eBPF for rich applications. It will have relevance for medical, aviation, and AI research. I don't suppose that end-users won't be looking for it until the bad times really start ramping up. But, I suppose we'll need to port Doom over to it before we can know for sure.
> We can go back to the metal and create a new kind of computer; one that does have a kind of permanence.
it's kind of strange to think about but i guess now there's a new incentive to do something truly new and innovative. The llms won't be able to do it for you.
My goal isn't to make LLM-assistance impossible; it will still be possible. In fact, GPT2-level inference is one of launch demos I have planned if I can finish this cursed self-hosting run.
My goal is to make training (especially self-training) impossible; while making inference deterministic by design and highly interpretable.
The idea is to build a sanctuary substrate where humans are the only beneficiaries of all possible technical advancements.
Thanks. The hardest part has been slogging through the segfaults and documenting all the unprincipled things I've had to add. Post-bootstrap, I have to undo it all because my IR is a semantically rich JSON format that is turing-incomplete by design. I'm building a substrate for rich applications over bounded computation, like eBPF but for applications and inference.
I never appreciated tailwind until AI models revealed it as such a token-efficient way transport styles between models and other use-cases. AI aruably hurts demand for their premium offering the same way it hurts demand for junior devs.
I'll sometimes ask Claude Sonnet 4.5 for JS and TS library recommendations. Not for "latest" or "most popular". For this case, it seems to love recommending promising-looking code from repos released two months ago with like 63 stars.
Seems like the opinion of someone who doesn't know that OpenAI cloned Anthropic's innovations of artifacts and computer use with their "canvas" and "operator".
Those are applied-ML level advancements, OpenAI has pushed model level advancements. xAI has never really done much it seemed except download the latest papers and reproduce them.
Don't forget that OpenAI was also following Anthropic's lead at the model level with o1. They may have been first with single-shot CoT and native tokens, but advancements from the product side matter, and OpenAI has not been as original there some would like to believe.
I suppose it is time to finally apply to YC for DeepMojo. With over 40 packages in our monorepo, after a year of ramping up, we recently launched on Windows, and achieved MacOS support internally. Secure, local first, zero-trust AI, with opted-out defaults, no user telemetry, no ads, and no internet required.
Also his opsec was sloppy. If you want to believe that the spooks were doing full ipv4 scans to DDoS all his legit exit nodes that would make a better movie. But really, he was just in over his head.
Predictably, dark web market operators adapted afterward. The state got lucky and they knew it, so that also factored in to their sentencing recommendations.
A tasteful post and distinction well highlighted. Humorously, Yvo Schaap is no stranger to 10x thinking. For one thing, Yvo publishes diagrams on SaaS/dev topics that always seem consistently way ahead of their time in terms of their organization and completeness.
Roots? FB's roots are frat boy pranks and backstabbing your actual friends. Better headline: Billionaire backtracks on freespeech after a private meeting with a much more powerful billionaire to discuss ways of making amends for his pesky commitment to a well-informed society.
Does "suddenly politically inexpedient performative pandering program he calls a fact-checking" solution work better? I didn't want to go in for the edit.
It feels as though a window is closing upon the feeling that software can be a powerful voice for the true needs of humanity. Those of us who can sense the deepest problems and implications well in advance are already rare. We are no more immune to the atrophy of forgetting than anyone.
But there is a third option beyond embrace or self-extinguish. The author even uses the word, implying that consumers wanted computers to be nothing more than an appliance.
The third option is to follow in the steps of fiction, the Butlerians of Dune, to transform general computation into bounded execution. We can go back to the metal and create a new kind of computer; one that does have a kind of permanence.
From that foundation, we can build a new kind of software, one that forces users to treat the machine as appliance.
It has never been done. Maybe it won't even work. But, I need to know. It feels meaningful and it has me writing my first compiler after 39 years of software development. It feels like fighting back.
reply