coldtea

OK, so it IS "taken away from them" as their job, which was the point.

Or did you think the argment was that they'll be forbidden by force to do math, and come to refute that?

>So a breach occurs and they recommend people rotate keys? But they claim fraud and break everyone's access with existing keys?

That's what you do when you have a breach. What exactly did you expected? Keys continue to work and everybody gets a box of chocolates too?

Could it be because some hacker network hijacked OpenCode accounts, taking advantage of their OpenAI, Anthropic, API credentials, for distillation?

>By implied I meant "caused". I did not meant "made people speculate that it might do something theoretically"

That's on you. Implied doesn't mean "caused".

>Also, what sci-fi authors and futurologists write is utterly irrelevant here. We should distinguish fantasy and reality

A useless distinction, since what sci-fi authors were saying was taken to be a foretelling of things to come, adopted as such by many voices in the wider cultural space.

And of course futurologists were people who made (or attempted to make) informed predictions and even policy suggestions of things to come, not mere "fantasy" peddlers.

>Practically, technological progress does not implies working less, it implies higher productivity

That's your concept of it. Hasn't been historically the concept people (from technologists and journalists to politicians and sociologists) had of it. And even if it matches how things went, it's hardly the only way things could have gone (or should go).

In effect yes.

But the promise of less work, and more free time, has been there from the beggining.

In the early/mid 20th century they even had big discussions and books about what people would do with all the "leisure" time that was coming.

Maybe if they haven't been bombed to death very soon afterwards, control room and everything, for trying to make things better for their population and kicking out foreign neocolonialists, would have gotten an update.

>* the idea does not 'compute' for me taking into account the nature of human beings - but I'm open to argument.*

The current arrangement does not compute (or work), and gets us straight to doom, "taking into account the nature of human beings".

What about them?

What part of it wouldn't work?

It has always implied working less.

And not just implied: it has been a repeatedly openly made promise, from the start of the industrial age to today, repeated again and again, by scientists, journalists, technologists, futorologists, businessmen, even by sci-fi authors.

Those people can use whatever.

The argument was about mathematicians, and "anyone who got into mathematics for love of solving problems".

Difficult to do that when you're unemployed, because machines took over your field.

We're not talking about doing it as a hobby.

Aside from having incremental new releases, it has stopped moving that fast, in evolutionary jumps, for over a year now.

>when we first introduced the industrial revolution to the peasants

In this case, we're the peasants.

The analogy doesn't make it better. Kubernetes was already an example of pile upon piles on harmful complexity.

How about the assymetry to lazily assume successes without receipts?

Any actual success stories?

Those countries, like the UK, didn't have much slave ownership to begin with. They just had slave trade, so much fewer stakeholders to complain about abolishing it, and even those had a more profitable replacement: colonialism.

The whole actual, not necessarily the "openly admitted", utility of AI is to allow people to ship while not understanding the work, and not caring that much about it.

So such posts will make as much change as "trade, but be ethical" would make on a late 80s Wall Street trading floor:

"Before you tell the agent to start building anything, you go there and read and understand it first."

Yeah, not gonna happen. 1 in 100 might do that.

To calibrate even better that's just what the TFA is concerned.

The conversation on HN has expanded way beyond that, used as a mere starting point, and in this subthread is about the "death by a 1000 cuts" of modern Apple issues.

And "Apple fanbitch" was just a fun way to say they supported Apple and championed their products. Not a way to describe some emotional disregulation.

And "Screw Apple" sounds like a totally valid consumer sentiment, when the products stop serving you and get more expensive and cocky. Not some blind rage.

>It sounds like you expect products to have zero defects, under any circumstances.

Again with the bullshit strawman. Did anybody said anything about "zero defects under any circumstances"?

Yes, production units can fail. Errors can be made in some factory. Or from some supplier.

Not the same as designing a crappy keyboard mechanism, people have called out as crap for years, insisting on it, and it failing people again and again - only to come with fanfare 5 years later to revert it as if you're innovating by doing so.

Or like making parts non replaceable on purpose and having them get worse performance in newer versions of the OS for no good reason. (The complimentary thing to tieing OS features to newer versions of the hardware for no reason, even when support for them in hardware form is absolutely not necessary).

>Show me a single product EVER that doesn't have failure modes or that lasts forever.

Conversation is over.

Everything can be reverted and/or stopped.

Some by the choice of people. Others by disasters and changes.

And all inevitably - at worst, through the heat death of the universe.

>How do you do that without violence?

How do you abolish slavery without violence?

Such as the ability to run the commercial software I want to run - for music, video, etc.

Such as the ecosystem being united and not a fragmented mess even worse than Apple's lack of coordination between teams.

Such as first class support, drivers, and control programs, for almost all the hardware I want to own.

>The universe is not so generous as to make clearly differentiable "good" and "bad" things, more often than not they are two sides of the same coin

Let's throw the AI "good" things away too then. We can do without them. It's amazing how a tech that didn't exist commercially at all 4 years ago it's considered "indispensable" even if it's going to destroy society and/or humanity.

What exactly sounds "disingenuous" to you?

Someone bought the hardware. It worked. Then it stopped / was damaged, and not for bad use (e.g. operating it in the sun or dropping it or something).

>but to suggest there's no such thing as price/durability trade offs, regular wear and tear, or just poor construction, and instead it is "hardware changes" is a weird take.

Nobody suggested that, so that's an even weirder take.

The things mentioned are not "regular wear and tear" nor price/durability trade offs.

As for "poor construction", yes, that leads to hardware that changes to worse under you over time. Mind blown?

Yeah, just not on the aspects that matter to some of us.

The hardware absolutely changes after sale, there have been cases of keyboard's failing (e.g. during the butterfly keyboards), backlight failures (happened to some MBP runs), cracked displays (keys pressing into them), anti-reflective coating peeling, hinge issues (in several models), display failures (discoloration, light leaks), issues with (dedicated) GPUs in intel era models, battery expansions, logic board failures (there was a program that had 2-3 rounds or replacements), touch strip failures, and many others. Also ever heard of planned obselense?

And that's just pure hardware. Hardware/battery performance dropping by OS updates has been well known, and there were a few class actions lawsuit Apple lost or settled and fined.

Ever heard of planned obsolescence? The hardware absolutely changes after sale, there have been cases of keyboard's failing (e.g. during the butterfly keyboards), backlight failures (happened to some MBP runs), cracked displays (keys pressing into them), anti-reflective coating peeling, hinge issues (in several models), display failures (discoloration, light leaks), issues with (dedicated) GPUs in intel era models, battery expansions, logic board failures (there was a program that had 2-3 rounds or replacements), touch strip failures, and many others.

And that's just pure hardware. Hardware/battery performance dropping by OS updates has been well known, and there were a few class actions lawsuit Apple lost or settled and fined.

What's the qualifier for "so" (in "so emotionally invested")? Did someone measure it and it's beyond the healthy range?

Parent is just passionate about the quality, or decline, of the tools he spend a good chunk of money of, and spends hours each day doing professional work with.