ecocentrik

Now you're arguing against your own analogy? Hunter was ubiquitous position in human society prior to the domestication of animals. 50% of the workforce in hunter-gather societies. Today, 12 millennia after the domestication of wildlife, that number is down to 9-14% of the global workforce dedicated to the production, distribution, processing, sales of meat (not including cooked food) according to opus.

Considering that only 1% of the US workforce was a software engineer I expect similar workforce optimization to occur in software engineering specializations over the next 12,000 years. /s But seriously, it's never going to zero.

We don't need as many hunters because we've domesticated sources of meat. We still need ranchers, butchers... an entire supply chain to get meat to consumers. We didn't remove humans from the loop, we just created specializations.

Software specialization might look very different in 10 years but I doubt that technically specialized humans will be completely removed from their professions. We might not be carrying bows and arrows anymore but we will be carrying the equivalent of a rope and a Stetson.

Languages have been reporting compile and runtime errors for decades. Additionally very few senior developers don't already have their minds wired to spot typos the way copy editors spot bad punctuation. Typos were only really a problem for students.

The capacity of the person prompting it to understand is the threshold they won't cross. They can squeeze the gap as much as possible by dumbing down answers or slowly ramping up information complexity but there is a limit to comprehension.

Glib is called for. The amount of information asymmetry that's still on the table as vibe coders and vibe engineers and vibe doctors emerge is staggering. Professional experience is still incredibly valuable. Most software developers might spend more than 6% of their time coding but no senior developers are banging their heads for hours over typos.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xBilK3gT5e0

The idea that anything can still be buried in a filling is equally ridiculous

Try loading the models up in a coding harness like Claude Code. There's a few docx skills listed on Vercel's skill index.

https://skills.sh/tfriedel/claude-office-skills/docx

When was the last time you used Qwen models? Their 3.5 and 3.6 models are excellent with tool calling.

Good homogenous experience is the hallmark of good design. There are no surprises with good design. It just works the way you expect it to work. Good design should not generally challenge your expectations.

They are clearly straining under new demand and everyone is being served highly quantized models without notice.

Oil producers that weren't disrupted over the last few weeks.

Tests for correctness, self similarity, duplication of concerns, contradictory statutes, edge case detection, cruft or outdated laws that muddy the waters...

If the full compliment of software development practices were applied to legislation and ordinances we would be living in a very different world.

The term for this is ethical consumerism or conscious consumerism, defined as purchasing products that align with moral, social, or environmental values, acting as a form of "voting" with one's money.

Virtue signaling takes place wherever changes in group behavior are required by changes in conditions but calling it just virtue signaling is reductive. People are moving off of US services because of the behavior of the US government and US citizens.

Flash should have transitioned into an authoring tool for SVG + CSS + JS but it just took a knee because so many people hated flash for all of its warts by the time SVG and Canvas moved vector graphics rendering to the browser. Flash was a real pain the ass for most web users and Web 2.0 technologies did kill it.

I think the problem might actually be with reenforcing the red lines. The events of the last few weeks and this new deal only make sense if Anthropic was trying to find out how Palantir and the Pentagon had circumvented their restrictions to attempt to reenforce those restrictions like company actually concerned about the misuse of their product. OpenAI most likely came in with assurances that they wouldn't attempt to reinforce their restrictions.

No. I'm suggesting there should be AI safety regulation to limit how AI can be used by the government. It's new tech and it pays to be cautious and restrict usage in areas like nuclear missile launch and domestic surveillance.

Isn't the story here that the DOD is pressuring Anthropic and others to enable their AI for this specific use and for now Anthropic and others are saying no while the DOD threatens them with penalties.

We desperately need real AI safety legislation.

Doesn't this run into the same bottleneck as developing AI first languages? AI need tons of training material for how to write good formal verification code or code in new AI first languages that doesn't exist. The only solution is large scale synthetic generation which is hard to do if humans, on some level, can't verify that the synthetic data is any good.

In the US they also get scanned and stored.

Given the choice between a 2000 acre banana plantation and 400 bitcoin. I would choose the banana plantation with full confidence that I would get a better return from bananas over the next 20 years.

My advice: There's always at least one crypto scammer telling you to hold through the dip.

I agree. Agentic use isn't always necessary. Most of the time it makes more sense to treat LLMs like a dumb, unauthenticated human user.

Mississippi? I bet it's a flyover state with a tiny sliver of road that sees massive trucking volume.

Eh. Discovering how neurons can be coaxed into memorizing things with almost perfect recall was cool but real AGI or even ASI shouldn't require the sum total of all human generated data to train.

Even ordering a pizza requires the cooperation of a functioning telecom system, a pizza manufacturer, a delivery person, a hungry customer...

There's not that many controversial topics at any given time. One of Wikipedia's solutions was to lock pages until a controversy subsided. Perma-controversy has been managed in other ways, like avoiding the statement of opinion as fact, the use of clear and uncontroversial language, using discussion pages to hash out acceptable and unacceptable content, competent moderators... Rage burns itself and people get bored with vandalism.

There was a period of time where Wikipedia was more scrutinized than print encyclopedias because people did not understand the power of having 1000s of experts and the occasional non-experts editing an entry for free instead of underpaying one sudo-expert. They couldn't comprehend how an open source encyclopedia would even work or trust that humans could effectively collaborate on the task. They imagined that 1000s of self-interested chaos monkeys would spend all of their energy destroying what 2-3 hard working people has spent hours creating instead of the inverse. Humans are very pessimistic about other humans. In my experience when humans are given the choice to cooperate or fight, most choose to cooperate.

All of that said, I trust Wikipedia more than I trust any LLMs but don't rely on either as a final source for understanding complex topics.

What's the obsession with Burry?

By "real people" do you mean people who are not members of those minority groups? Or are people who can "accurately classify the facial expression of images from minority groups" not "real people"?

I hope you can see the problem with your very lazy argument.

I wasn't claiming the Turing Test was a benchmark for intelligence but the ability to fool a human into thinking a machine is intelligent in conversation is still a significant milestone. I should have said "some abstract reasoning". ARC-2 looks promising.