bko

There's nothing compassionate, loving or caring letting people kill themselves consuming hard drugs.

I think the real reason is basic collusion. They're burning tens of billions training new models. It's a very competitive space. They know that the companies capable of frontier models is limited so if they can all get together and agree to slow down it gives them more time to make money from inference.

So you're using the IDE for review? The main features you need are around simple things like reading files, tracking git changes, things like that?

That's a small subset of the functionality you would need if you're actually authoring code. So the IDE maybe be more valuable, but the feature set you need is actually much smaller and can probably be redesigned given your narrow workflow.

Is this accurate?

My problem with this book is that it relies heavily on priming studies. The idea is that you "primed" them for some set of behaviors.

Here's an example of a study that supposedly supports this. Participants held a pen in their mouth in one of two ways:

- Between the teeth, without touching the lips. This activates some of the muscles used in smiling.

- Between the lips, without using the teeth. This inhibits those smile-related muscles.

If you think that's stupid and reading into this is foolish it's because it is. A lot of the arguments in this book are built in a delicate set of assumptions that are supported by equally ridiculous and contrived experiments, many of which cannot be reproduced.

I've heard people that work/worked with Musk that say he works a lot and is very knowledgeable about technical matters. I have never found someone that worked with him or knows him personally that contradicts this. So this idea that Musk just got lucky in the 7 companies he founded and he's just a bozo who happened to trip upon some new rocket designs is just insane.

> OBSERVATION: There are zero examples of any intelligent species which is vastly more capable than another species, yet surrenders decision-making control over its own future to the less-capable species.

This is just silly. AI isn't an intelligent species. It's a tool, it doesn't have autonomy or any motive apart from the one we enforce through reinforcement learning. That's like saying machines are "stronger" than humans, and obv they could kill us all so why would they not just take over.

I think you're asking too much of a publication to do this kind of investigative reporting.

Their job is to scan the app store for any app that is anti-tech and has at least 1k downloads and write an article about how there's huge backlash.

It kind of does. It's like "I want an all powerful regulatory agency that can impose rules by dictat, but I only want them to do this things I agree with"

175k ppl die each year in Europe due to heat death. But I guess if you ignore that being slightly warm is not a big deal

No but overly burdensome regulatory bodies that are concerned about such things like how the top of my bottle cap functions and how low i set my ac temp leads to an incredibly hostile business environment and stagnant culture.

But like I said, nice place to visit for the time being.

PROMPT: make this more concise while conveying the same message

I think “cutting down on words” depends on personal writing style. AI tends to write more than I would, so I usually have the opposite problem.

Yes, you hit on the main problem with LLMs for writing. It doesn't cost you anything. It can do the reasoning for you and creating long messaging with dodgy reasoning.

I think you should write down your thoughts, tell it to make the points you spelled out and be concise and respectful of the reader's time and attention. When I do this, it works very well. But I agree if you just have it respond and reason it tends to often produces bad responses.

> I think so because (1) the writing process is an essential part of the thinking process, (2) AI writing is vague and wrong in hard-to-notice ways, and (3) writing with AI (and not labeling it as such) is rude and misleading. I’ll explain these points in more detail below, but first, a few throat clearings.

1. Agree writing process is essential, but just getting your thoughts down is the start.

2. Human writing is very often vague and wrong in hard to notice ways, but I would say it's more likely to be wrong in easy to notice ways, which is ... better?

3. I think it's rude to not use the best tools to convey the message most clearly and most respectfully of my time. I often use AI to help me write emails and nearly every time it provides more concise well structured versions of what I have to say. 99% of the time I'm just trying to convey a message clearly, that's all. When I write my draft there is often words I can delete or phrases that I can shorten. It's hard to spot but when you have AI point them out it's obvious. This is the role of an editor (check out Stephen King book On Writing which makes this point). Unfortunately I don't have an editor, but I have AI that helps trim the fat, get to the point and save my readers time.

If these tools are available to you and you don't use them, then I think that would be disrespectful. I don't take any solace thinking how much time and effort went into what someone wrote me. If I could save them time and have AI write or edit, and save me time reading it since it would be more concise and better structured, it's a win-win.

I think it's a very common human trope to believe that we are in end-times. I imagine the overlap between the people that believe that AI will end humanity and those that believed climate change will end humanity 10 years ago is pretty significant. Before that it was people that believed in the rapture.

Sure one of these things could technically end humanity within our lifetimes. But the fact that the end of humanity has been predicted for as long as humans have been around is telling.

What I don't understand about politicians is that few support a positive view of whats possible.

Consider California. It's a one-party state. One party has the governor, lieutenant governor, 30 out of 40 state senators, 60 out of 80 state assemblymen, both senators and 43 of 52 congressmen.

They're all more or less aligned on their vision. And their vision sounds great. High speed rail or low cost housing for instance. Nothing prevents them from capturing their vision, and yet they fail.

I was surprised to learn that Canada doesn't even have free trade across their own provenances. A big benefit of the United States is that it's essentially a very large free trade zone across 50 states.

If Canada wanted to facilitate trade, I would imagine they would figure it out internally. So my guess is that this is just giving up some political autonomy for some unknown reason, maybe to stick it to the US?

I honestly don't know what the essay's point is. It starts off promising, gives good general advice about looking at friend of friends to finding these cars and looking past cosmetic issues. But it stops there.

Okay, I can ignore things like the car doesn't look nice or doors don't lock. But what should I actually look for? What are the things I shouldn't compromise about? Is there some useful metric to calculate useful life of the car? Rules of thumb for issues that may arise, like bad brakes, tires, engine noise, etc? What are things I can fix myself?

When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right.

There's literally trillions at stake for under-reporting these numbers. A lot of government benefits are tied to this not to mention political ramifications of high inflation. So I'll go with vibes (i.e. experienced reality) over some government re-balanced basket formula

It's in the parents profile

Android app called "AudioRun"

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.audiorun.a...

https://apkpure.com/audiorun/com.audiorun.app

I think the point is that inflation numbers are bs. The official number from 2021 to today is 23%. But we didn't see prices only 23%. A restaurant mean didn't go from $20 to $25. It easily went up 50% or more.

Inflation isn't some force of nature that needs to be accounted for like the curvature of the earth.

Saying an article is just PR, without addressing the specific article is not helpful.

Argue how the author was funded by such and such a group with ties to this other group. Say something about the methodology used. Say literally anything about the actual post.

This would be the equivalent of me just calling you a "shill" with no other context. The burden of proof is on you since you're making the claim that this is misleading PR.

Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy.

Sure, you can claim it was a dick move, and maybe it is (although why is a handle so valuable? "muse instagram" now links to the @museband and their followers were transferred). This is just some phony outrage.

It's also ironic that the overlap of people that find this offensive but were fine with social media censorship since "it's a private company" is > 0%

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muse%20instagram

Growing proof that comment sections from tech forums have been overrun with unhelpful negativity unrelated to the actual posts they're commenting on.

It makes me feel so much better than someone can be one-shotted into a political belief with a poem. I was worried they would rely too much on reasoning and evidence.

I doubt the president of the United States would be so quick to grant a full pardon to the Flock CEO for any past (or future) crimes committed.

Thanks for proving my point.

That's funny because ANPR systems are much looser in other countries including much longer retention. It helps that you don't have national newspapers printing negative articles around the technology every day!

The Flock stat is interesting because 46% of Americans believe widespread use of facial recognition would be a good thing (27% unsure).

Maybe people oppose Flock because it's not going far enough! Or maybe there is a coordinated campaign against a license plate reader for some weird reason

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/public-more-...

Billions in fines is at least an incentive to invest in measures to prevent data leaks or misuse.

For instance, in July 2026 the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance discovered that two reports published on its own website contained hidden underlying personal data that unauthorized users could access. The reports were supposed to show aggregate statistics, but the accessible data could include Medicaid IDs, birth dates, provider names, race, gender, ward, and ethnicity. The exposure potentially existed from 2023 until July 2026.

Do you want to guess how many billions in fines or people were fired due to the leak?

https://dhcf.dc.gov/page/dhcf-data-incident

Corporations are more accountable than government agencies. A government agency can switch vendors or you can drag their CEOs in front of Congress. Try that with some internal bureaucrat in an agency you've never heard of.

Which is...

I like how you're so nuanced when I'm pretty sure you never heard the acronym ANPR before