Sean Howell @ControlFreq

Residents in a Pasadena neighborhood are outraged after a mailman was seen attacking a beloved peacock that is known to roam the area. Details: ktla.com/news/local-new…

12 28 131 16K 7

0 0 1 838 1

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

2 months ago

@GillVerd

0 0 7 320 0

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

3 months ago

@isaiah_p_taylor Amazing and extremely well deserved, massive congratulations to you and the team!

0 0 0 2K 0

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

3 months ago

@S_Flammia @marcotomamichel Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Pro seem more willing (and able) to dive in. Opus 5 seems particularly lazy for whatever reason. claude.ai/share/72f72518… chatgpt.com/share/6a6bda68…

0 1 5 382 1

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

3 months ago

@RobinKothari by riding the tiger

0 0 0 299 0

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

3 months ago

@airkatakana You can always these emails to me dawg

0 0 1 55 0

View Details

Sean Howell @ControlFreq

3 months ago

@letonyo Fewer orders of magnitude left to go before billions than some things I suppose.

0 0 2 472 0

View Details

@nick_farina Percentage seems highly variable by car. 90% seems right for something like a new G-Wagon, but maybe 10% for a Spyder RS. When it comes to super rare stuff that’s never driven or track-only/non-road-legal models, safe to say it has little to do with strangers who will never see.

1 0 1 109 0

View Details

Daniel Litt @littmath

5 months ago

STEM academia serves two closely intertwined purposes: the production of high quality science and the production of human capital. These two purposes feed into each other. The obvious direction is that we develop human capital by paying people to produce science. What is perhaps less obvious is that the very fact that human labor is used to produce science has historically been an important input to its quality. The goal of science is not simply to produce papers, but rather to produce good work--that a person is willing to spend months working on a paper is a (weak) witness to the fact that it has some minimum quality. If someone has a record of producing high quality work, that they wrote a paper is a stronger witness, since it was worth the opportunity cost to write it. If many people engage with it substantially, that is even stronger evidence. This is not to say that there isn't lots of low-quality work--there is, in fact a huge amount--but we have strong sorting mechanisms, admittedly using imperfect proxies (all depending on costly human labor!), to find high-quality stuff. Arguably the paper itself is not the primary product here; in many cases the primary product is actually the expertise developed over the course of producing it, which can then be applied to other questions. If you believe, as I do, that producing high quality science should be one of our fundamental goals, I think you’re obligated to embrace new tools that help one do so. Refusing to is a declaration that these outputs are not important. But I worry that we are not on track to automate the production of good work; rather, we are on track to automate the production of papers. We need new mechanisms to ensure that we are also producing good work, and to ensure that we are developing the human capital to engage with it.