Why would you need 6 different models running across three providers? Just have a single one running, then you avoid all this nonsense around locking.
And this is ultimately pointless, because it’s just a shitter SQLite. It’s nothing new. If you’re going to build something big like this, there needs to be a real business case
You could already slop out a replica of SQLite if you wanted. But you don’t, because of the effort it would take to test and maintain it.
Ultimately, this was an experiment with no intent to migrate to a production environment. Regarding single agents, for large projects one agent is too slow. So that's why developing multi-agent paradigms is compelling.
I view SQLite as just an objective to attain and optimize for, but nothing more. I agree 100% that this is just a shittier SQLite.
Makes sense. You’d rather burn a birkin than let a poor person get their grubby little mitts on it. So the only way to stop them burning them, is to force them to do something with them.
I’ll give you a counter example. I had an MRI of my neck for unrelated reasons. It found a thyroid nodule with suspicious characteristics. Incidentally I had had an MRI of the same areaa few years before and it wasn’t there.
So I had a biopsy. Which was equivocal also.
So I had it out which involved removing half my thyroid. Turns out it was a cancer but like the least serious kind, in fact the classification of it as actual cancer has gone back and forth over the years
But my other half of my thyroid couldn’t produce enough thyroid hormone, and now I have to take thyroid replacement the rest of my life to start alive
Also the surgery affected my voice and I sound like RFK jr now.
I clearly suffered some harm, and even after having the thing out, it’s unclear if that was beneficial at all. A large proportion of these kind of tumors quit growing and never do anything bad. But some do. So who knows.
The United States Preventative Services Task Force[1] reviews studies and meta-studies to make recommendations about screening procedures. Their ratings are used by Medicare and Medicaid to decide what's covered and for which patients. In turn, many private insurance companies cover the same procedures. The USPSTF explicitly doesn't consider cost in their recommendations. Most often, they look at whether a screening reduces mortality rates.
But you're not having cancer checked out, you're having a "spot" or a "nodule" or something checked out.
And the person that's making the recommendation on whether or not to check it out may get sued for $10M if they tell you it's probably nothing and they're wrong, but have no harm come to them if they tell you it's worth having some other doctor do a biopsy.
And they might make an extra couple hundred bucks every time you have to come back and see them to follow up on this spot.
And the radiologist interpreting the MRIs... the same perverse incentives regarding how they interpret a "spot."
Insurance-based medical systems mean the patient has transferred responsibility for saying no to those actually paying the bills. They have to draw the line somewhere.
But if you’ve never looked at the log before all these WARNINGs might be normal operation. It’s not turning off logging, it’s saying log at ERROR level.
Doctors absolutely hate the idea of people being checked for diseases. Every time someone comes out with a plan to detect cancer or prevent HIV, they start screeching.
“But what if the person would have died anyway without noticing they had cancer? Think of the shareholders. They would have paid for treatment for nothing”
reply