dontwannahearit

Oh god, dictators that live forever. Wealth that can be amassed and hoarded across a billion natural lifespans. Orwells boot stamping on a human face for eternity made real.

Death is a feature not a bug.

The Basque region wants a word...

I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely".

The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places.

I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the reverend, my grandmother or my children to hear - but in the uni-context I have to mediate my speech to what is appropriate to all of those audiences or risk judgement for it.

The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.

Trying to maintain separate context, different identities across platforms is an attempt to fight against that and to limit the risk that something I say on one plaform is not going to destroy my social credit in every other platform where I participate.

But people can never be "pure" enough and what is acceptable in the uni-context will change over time. If you documented your life within it you will find you will be branded a heretic sooner or later.

You seem to have thought about this. Would Creatine help?

I think LLMs/coding agents in particular are going to play out like automation always does.

1. You have a task and it requires an expert to perform it (software engineering, where we were) 2. You automate the task, it still requires the expert to babysit it (where we are now) 3. Management works out that the expert is just monitoring what the automation is doing and has actually lost expertise because they are just watching, not doing. Pay collapses. (where we are going)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation

I think the average size of US vehicles has something to do with it. Being hit by a distracted driver in a Fiat Cinquecento is probably way more survivable than being hit by an F250 Super Duty twatwagon.

No chance. Every despot has a cadre of true believers, the types who believe their great leader is playing 4D chess or that its all part of a greater divine plan.

And uses U+2026 HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS instead of typing three periods? Also seems like LLM tell. But could just be a very efficient typist

Not just me then.

Only tangentially related to the article but I have a family member that is losing sight due to macular degeneration. They are not far now from legally blind.

If AI wearables could help them navigate unfamiliar places, identify and read signs or answer questions about their surroundings I think they would leap at it.

Yeah, there's deprivation and poverty in parts of the UK and also extreme wealth. It's a spectrum.

But you want to focus on one end of the spectrum? Yes, it's the truth but not the whole truth.

See my comment below. On HN for example it isn’t necessarily the moderators, it’s the users with downvote power who can influence what everyone else sees.

So the elite users are the ones who choose. Funny how our communities mirror the social structures we supposedly hate.

And who gets to decide?

You want human things? Put down the technology and go and connect with some humans.

But yes, the original poster with their allusions to lost limbs and "pointless swinging in a vast, unquantifiable emptiness.." is overreacting, depressed or both.

The slop will continue until it is no longer profit-making for someone.

How much of the specs themselves came from the LLM? The development schedule https://github.com/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/blob/main... has very AI-looking estimates for exampl and I can see a commit in the architecture.md file which is exclusively changing em-dashes to normal dashes (https://github.com/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/commit/74...) which suggests you wanted to make it seem less LLM-generated?

I ask, not to condemn, but to find out what your process was for developing the requirements. Clearly it was done with LLM help but what was the refinement process?

Depends on whether you can keep things separated logically. I have 3 git worktrees open, each working on a different area.

Generally its feature a, feature b and a refactoring branch of some kind.

My workflow is:

1. Add ticket in gitlab describing bug or feature in as much detail as possible along with acceptance criteria like expected unit tests or browser based tests.

2. In a work tree create a branch based on the id of that ticket in gitlab.

3. Start Claude, tell it to use a skill to pull that ticket, research and make a plan.

4. Review the plan, ask questions, refine.

5. Approve plan and let cluade cook.

6. Have Claude run a set of linters/tests/code quality checks and ground until done.

7. Start a new Claude instance, ask it to review changes made. Provide feedback to first Claude instance for changes.

8. Commit and push, creating a draft mr/pr in gitlab.

9. Review the actual code changes myself using gitlab. Comment on things not right.

10. Get Claude to use another skill to pull comments and work to resolve them. Also feed back any CI failures.

11. Manually close comments and push again. Repeat until done and ready for co-worker review.

I can only keep 3 threads like this going at once. Sometimes it’s only 1 or 2, depending on complexity. Smaller is better. Try to stay atomic and avoid feature creep in each mr.

Heartbreaking.

+1. Visit the Vatican sometime for major "Jesus did not have this in mind" moment.

Oh please, TFA has a title of "Flowers after the beating" - its a direct reference to domestic abuse which attempts to equate Microsofts behaviour and that of a domestic abuser.

Username checks out, but you might want to check with your mother about how she feels about this comparison.

TFA brings up abuse not stndef.

An analogy is "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects" and stndef is right to point out that microsoft behavior, while abusive, is not comparable to domestic abuse "in significant respects". Not even close.

The TFA title is sensational for effect and in very poor taste.

That doesn't sound like it could be gamed, at all.

Mr. Meeseeks!

Please share evidence.

You did not provide evidence that UK are "arresting people based on social media posts criticizing goverment..."

I think there are users who view "their AI" as somewhere in the venn-diagram of their relationships.

And it's a spectrum, at one end you got the full-on AI psychosis and at the other "its a machine, I owe it nothing".

Conversational AI is going to be sticky to the extent that you see a switch to a different provider as dropping a relationship.

…just so long as the government remains responsible for clearing up the mess?

Would it not be better to have 100 such tests "Pelican on bicycle", "Tiger on stilts"..., and generate them all for every new model but only release a new one each time. That way you could show progression across all models, attempts at benchmaxxing would be more obvious.

Given the crazy money and vying for supremacy among AI companies right now it does seem naive to belive that no attempt at better pelicans on bicycles is being made. You can argue "but I will know because of the quality of ocelots on skateboards" but without a back catalog of ocelots on skateboards to publish its one datapoint and leaves the AI companies with too much plausible deniability.

The pelicans-on-bicycles is a bit of fun for you (and us!) but it has become a measure of the quality of models so its serious business for them.

There is an assymetry of incentives and high risk you are being their useful idiot. Sorry to be blunt.

It's pretty much over for the human-internet. Search was gamed, its usefulness has plummeted, so humans will increasingly ask their LLM of choice and that LLM will have been trained on the content of the internet.

So when someone wants to know something about the topic that my website is focused on, chances are it will not be the material from the website they see directly, but a summary of what the LLM learned from my website.

Ergo, if I want to get my message across I have to write for the LLM. It's the only reader that really matters and it is going to have its stylistic preferences (I suspect bland, corporate, factual, authoritative, avoiding controversy but this will be the new SEO).

We meatbags are not the audience.

In the UK since 2019–20, disability benefit spending has grown by 45% in real terms and incapacity benefit spending by 26%.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claim...

You can argue that nobody is systematically abusing the system but numbers go up. To those paying the taxes to support these benefits that sort of growth looks like abuse.

GP means "Ministry of Truth" in the Orwellian-sense. The "Ministry of Truth" was the propaganda arm of the government just as the "Ministry of Love" is the interrogation/torture and brainwashing center.