chii

> An LLM absolutely cannot produce work to the highest human standards

yep. This is the choice quote.

Even most humans cannot produce work to the highest human standards. The fact is, most work does not need to be done to the highest human standards, it simply needs to be done to the lowest possible standard that someone would pay for, at the cheapest price.

The consumer chooses the cheapest price. Look at sweat shops, look at chinese manufacturing, look at offshoring. All of these produces an inferior product, and yet they are what gets the most profit and overwhelmingly the largest market share of consumer purchases.

> It's the erosion of trust in the api calls themselves.

and that's why security thru obscurity fails. It just hasn't so far.

And if this is the current state of affairs, then the change and pain is what needs to happen for the system to improve.

For example, all api calls would have some form of authentication and attestation.

revealing that security thru obscurity is broken can only lead to a better future, even if in the intermediate one there are lots of breakages. It's suffering that needs to happen, and better sooner rather than later imho.

And i assume you don't truly mean spoof as in man-in-the-middling someone - i assume you mean the end user knows they are using an alternate system and are not being defrauded. Like using a photoshop replacement.

> spoofs a system so pivotal to modern human society that the plug needs to be pulled.

why would a recreated system be detrimental?

If currently there's a monopoly on a software, this AI recreation is a good outcome to poke holes in that monopoly. It's only bad if you are financially invested in said monopoly, and this would be a minority compared to the amount of benefits that society at large could obtain.

and why tech jobs?

is it because you personally would benefit from having tech jobs visas regulated so that your own wages don't get pushed down?

I think skilled labour import is, on the whole, beneficial. The bigger issue isn't this, but that they're legally bound only to that single company (and would need to reapply for the visa when they would change jobs).

If this condition could be changed, then it fix the issue.

> program itself is racist as hell

why is it racist to find workers willing to accept a lower wage to do the same quality work?

> labeled with a cash price and a visa price and Mastercard price and discover price and Amex price?

of course not. That's absurd.

I want a single price, regardless of my choice of method of payment. The cost should be built-in to the price. If the cost of providing one type of payment method is too high, i want the business to take out out to make their price more competitive (balanced with the amount of people unwilling to shop there without said payment method).

Merchants and payment providers compete to provide payment methods at as competitive rates as possible, because they needs to compete with cash handling (which isn't hard at all), and the consumer doesn't think about "cost of payment method" - they merely need to think about the cost of the item displayed.

> No need to worry about the mathematicians hobbies here.

of course not.

Hobbies can still be done even if AI gets it done more quickly. Just like today, where knives are made much faster/cheaper in presses and CNC machines, vs a blacksmith hammering. But still, there are hobby blacksmiths.

it's the same - what research getting funded should not be determined by the applied nature of the research.

In fact, the taxpayer should be funding fundamental research because it's so hard to justify profit from it - but that funding would benefit all in the long future.

So leaving the applied research that have commercial value be funded by private, commercial interests, would make more sense.

usefulness can only be determined after the fact.

People thought, back in the 17 century, that imaginary were useless (except as a trick for some calculations). Turns out the research into these numbers back then is amazingly useful today, 300 years later, in electronics and such.

Publicly funded maths research should continue, even if some taxpayers feel it's a waste of money.

Then what about a toilet cleaning fee? If you as a customer used the toilet during your shop visit, then you get charged a toilet cleaning fee on top of your transaction.

To me, surcharges should not be allowed. The sticker price the customer sees when they decide to buy ought to be the price. This makes comparisons much easier, and enables more competitive pricing.

Why should such hope exist? When the motor vehicles were invented, humans have lost the speed race completely. Yet, nobody lamented and people still did foot racing for fun.

So will it be with AI tools. If these tools become so good, then it will be used. People who want to exercise their minds can still do so, even if that cannot produce economic value.

The new AI script-kiddies might not be in the target market for purchasing an IDE, so i think their customer base may potentially be shrinking.

Which is a shame really - this is similar to old blacksmithing tools.

> Companies might want to avoid this being used as a side channel to infer the amount of their compute.

none of these are reason for the country not to demand transparent data for monitoring.

Being able to monitor things properly has high societal value - it prevents fraud (more data being visible makes it harder to fake). It prevents skirting regulations, and makes it easier for competitors to sniff out high margin opportunities (which serves to break monopolies in some sense).

Not to mention that statistics collected could have value in aggregate in research sometime in the future.

Like auditing and accounting, the country should mandate transparent data reporting of utilities usage for all industries.

> But nobody really cares about water; that's not what this is about.

you've hit the silent nail on the head.

The complaints about data centers are really complaints against ai and its encroachment into people's lives (more specifically, they fear for their jobs due to ai).

If people truly cared so much about the environment, where were their complaints about climate change and such?

It's the same with the recent hype about how AI going rogue or is gonna kill us all if we reach AGI.

None of these are real threats, compared to the threat of climate change, where there's a real threat of crop failures enmass due to consistently extreme weather, and coastal erosion sinking cities, etc. We'll hit this before we reach AGI no doubt.

why would including evaporation make any difference to the water usage counts?

The water used, whether evaporated or returned into soil (which includes rivers) is unusable any more. Unless the runoff is collected and reused again, which is a form of recycling, and should also not count towards usage of water.

steam does take 30%, vs the 0% of itch.io (as of now - they will eventually charge a commission).

> where people can live good lives than lord over a barren wasteland.

you'd be surprised at how some people prefer to lord over barren wasteland than to have less power.

> They don't get to make these choices on behalf of humanity

and yet, every carbon emitter in the world contributes to the demise of the climate, but you don't call for their dissolution (which would, conveniently, include yourself).

They would ask around, as well as perform a proper evaluation based on their current needs, rather than their experienced needs as a hobbyist?

> That's a checkbox decision for the customer.

and they would still complain if they got it wrong - it's always the platform/company's fault.

Look at banks and fraudulent transfers that customers themselves get phished into doing. The bank in the end usually take the hit (after the customer complains long enough). That's why there's all sorts of hoops and such to prevent customers from failing - and that causes friction for people regularly.

Therefore, the cloud company's decision to default safer is more correct from this perspective.

> the benefits of it will not be applied uniformly.

why not? Any system you have permission to use and store your data should be beneficial to you if it became more secure. Unless...of course if you're the one who desires unauthorized access.

> AI is going to expose how fragile the entire computing infrastructure in our world is.

this is a good outcome. A forcing function to encourage all computing to be more secure can only be good in the long term, even if there's a lot of pain in the short term.

People like to believe they live moral lives, unlike animals. But when the system breaks down, people quickly start behaving like animals - the ones who don't gets killed rather quickly.

This has been presented in fiction countless times, and those fiction is not made up from thin air.

> they ship a model per game?

there's no way that's true!?

> This used to be the workplace ... making workplace dating something frowned upon

because the owner of the business do not want relationship frictions to affect people's work.

> there is a line between human freedoms and govt overreach.

and they have not reached anywhere near that line.

Compare this to the land of the free, where ICE police can routinely jack an actual citizen they suspect of being an illegal alien, and face zero consequences. Where the president can declare an illegal tariff with zero consequences.

> Why do you expect hardware vendors not to want to do the same?

of course they want the moat - the point is that society as a whole should force them not to have a moat. Ala, they should not be allowed monopolies.

Unfortunately, this sort of legislation has been lacking recently, and in fact, has been failing even enforcing existing ones from yester-century.

i think they meant the hardware becomes more fungible. This is what made IBM lose their competitive advantage when it came to PCs, because others were able to make IBM-compatible ones that are cheaper and still able to use the same old software.

Everything you listed is exactly the reason why copyleft and GPLv3 needs to be the first and foremost license when opensourcing. If proliferated, it can give you all of these freedoms listed that you (and i) desire.