achierius

This comment is rather uninformed. Greco-Buddhist art was real, yes, but emerged far away from the geologic 'West' -- in Bactria, at the edge of India, where Hellenic garrisons had established a kingdom after the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire. We have very little evidence of feedback from there to the west, and so little potential for Buddhism to influence the development of later Greek society or e.g. Rome.

The most we have are faint gestures at how some Buddhists could indeed have been alive in the same place, at the same time, as early Christians. But Christ himself, as far as we know, never referenced Buddha or any Buddhist works, never interacted with a practitioner of the faith (or even referred to one), and all the same applies to the Apostles.

E.g. nobody would suggest that Buddhism was particularly influenced by Greek religious thinking, but we know with certainty that Greeks were present in the region due to their service in the Persian empire of the time.

The last line of GP's comment is key here: "Who do I sue if Palantir decides I am an illegal?"

This shouldn't make as much of a difference as it does, but due to how our legal system works, it's much harder to get meaningful legal satisfaction when an algorithm (or other inhuman distributed system) commits a crime against a person than when a person does so.

Death

I'm sure you'll feel that way so long as you have an income.

Compilers do, and AI models are making software more accessible than ever.

No, they didn't. It was straightforwardly unsafe and broken, the heaps of effort that went into supporting it were largely just to paper over that fact. It's no accident that the other browser vendors went along with dropping support so quickly after Apple did.

> It should also be their incentive

You can't just proclaim what incentives should be. We do have a mechanism for changing the incentives of management though: it's called unions.

> before its concentration leads to legislative capture

This already happened

Pasting a bit from another comment...

The whole idea of enshittification is that someone makes a high-quality app (or whatever), outcompetes all other entrants, and locks down the market. Then, having acquired pricing power, they can raise prices or, more often (as these tools aren't 'priced' from the perspective of the consumer, but rather indirectly funded e.g. through ads) lower the quality of the product. The steps in this chain are not inherent to 'making products', they emerge entirely from the confines and incentives of our market-based economy.

And it's not just "centrally planned economies" that avoid this. We see evidence from historical modes of production like artisinal handicraft. Despite there not being a free market of producers (as guilds generally possessed legally-enforced monopolies over saleable production) the general quality of goods thereby produced did not generally trend downwards. Indeed, we can see from the sources that in cases where quality was known to have dropped, popular backlash led to interventions, e.g. the various Parisian bread laws, or hallmarking regulations for goldsmiths. Obviously, similar mechanisms exist today in the form of governmental regulations, but the problem with free market economies is that they produce actors both incentivized and empowered to hamstring the government, capture regulators, and ultimately undermine that self-same free market, to their own benefit.

> I bet you 100% that in any planned economy OTA updates would still happen.

How so? In a democratically planned economy, we would expect that economic decisions considered by the majority of the population to be unwise/upsetting/etc. would not take place. Yes, many/most decisions would probably happen 'behind the scenes', according to the delegated authority of smaller committees or individual officials, but that's only so long as those decisions don't cause bad results for the broader populace.

More broadly, how exactly would enshittification take place in an economy not based around market principles? The whole idea is that someone makes a high-quality app (or whatever), outcompetes all other entrants, and locks down the market. Then, having acquired pricing power, they can raise prices or, more often (as these tools aren't 'priced' from the perspective of the consumer, but rather indirectly funded e.g. through ads) lower the quality of the product. These steps are not intrinsic to reality, they emerge entirely from the confines of our market-based economy.

And yes, you can argue that in an "ideal market" they wouldn't happen, but a truism of modern economics is that "sufficiently free markets" produce actors with the power and desire to capture/destroy said free market.

It wasn't meant as a critique, I'm legitimately interested in knowing more about where it can push boundaries and where it struggles. I agree that in general it's a truism that "Claude can try a number of new ideas" etc., but the question remains as to where in particular it actually takes advantage of this to push the envelope in a way other tools don't -- since that informs when it makes sense to use something like this.

Out of curiosity, what sort of things have you seen it do that better fit 'autoresearch' than 'autotune' thus far? Optimizations it made that wouldn't be been surfaced by an autotune system, I suppose.

When you're fighting the same enemy on a dozen battlefields, you won't stand a chance of winning until you understand that fact and go after the root cause.

Yes, and? People need to eat. Billionaires are generally not interested in whether or not the average Joe gets to eat.

Isn't this a depressing thought? Regardless of AI, to think that everything we read would come in the same literary style, conveying little of the author, giving no window through which to learn about who they are -- that would be a real loss.

Isn't that a good deal more reasonable though? China, as a polity, does indeed have agency. It's strange to suggest they don't, as if only America can do things on the world stage.

> To be clear, I don't do this.

How do you know that it works then? Are you using a different tool that does support it?

I can understand your general point, but how can you argue that this in particular isn't unique/cute whatever?

Do you have more info on those crashes (e.g. crashlogs)? I work on Safari and might be able to get that forwarded to other people.

Shooting someone for breaking your glasses would be an act of murder. Even shooting someone for slapping you in the face would be an act of murder. Clearly you don't have experience with firearms or the legislation around them, or you would be aware of this.

It was not fine then -- what we have now is simply even worse. We do not need to make concessions to our oligarchs: none of this is OK.

As many as are at OpenAI about a month from now.

Please stop pretending that this is only going to replace "tech workers". Do accountants "live by the sword"? Whose jobs did they replace? What about analysts, journalists, radiologists (one day, if not quite yet)?

And even within the realm of "tech", it's kinda bonkers to expect e.g. a firmware engineer to have some deep understanding of trends in ML/AI.

Altogether your #1 priority seems to be "bashing workers", the justification just being a matter of convenience.

Just like how all we had to do to shut down Guantanamo Bay was vote for President Obama, right? So glad that that worked out. By and large, our institutions are not democratic, in that they are not responsive to 'popular opinion'; while there are certain arenas where, for one reason or another, the will of the majority does sway the day (e.g. the influence of scandals on individual elected officials), by and large most things are decided by non-democratic factors like business interests and large donors, and the media just works to get people on-side with whatever comes out of that.

To quote a well-known study on the topic: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

(Gilens & Page, Perspectives in Politics)

> authentic Christian faith is not an arbitrary faith in anything you please

But he's not talking about an arbitrary faith. He's talking about faith in the capacity of priests -- clearly a relevant subject. And there are, indeed, _preambula fidei_ here: that the priest was taught in seminary, that the priest was approved by the Church, that the priest (through the bishop who ordained them) participates in a line of apostolic succession going back to Jesus, etc.

Brutal as in, heavy AI usage? What sort of categories are more affected?

I mean, have you tried getting `ca-derivations` to work with `ssh-ng`? That sounds like a good way to answer your own question.

People are afraid because they need to work to eat. People who don't need to work to eat are less likely to be afraid.

Stuff like constant folding won't take place until you hit an optimizing compiler tier. For the interpreter and baseline/template-compiler tiers, there's just not enough time to do that sort of dataflow optimization. So yes, it would help at least somewhat, esp. if you don't think the code is likely to tier up much for whatever reason (no one part is all that hot, or perhaps it's too polymorphic).

> No amount of baby cash, or white picket fences, or coercion, or lack of birth control, or whatever other set of schemes you can make, none of that matters.

This is a profoundly unscientific statement. All of these things matter, you just aren't willing (or rather think, correctly, that our society is not willing) to try them in earnest.