falcor84

I'm not the parent, but I suppose it was a joke reference to Star Trek where Data (an android character) discovers he has a brother named Lore [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Star_Trek:_The_N...

But that's circular - assuming that large investors are rational, and I do think they generally are, why wouldn't they strategically invest in anti-AI businesses?

My experience and intuition beg to differ. As I see it, much of our civilization progress is based on this redefinition of processes as entities, with some examples being: a sports team, a mathematical function, a loan, a company, a computer program and even the idea of a civilization itself.

> The thing is, no one has anything to gain from defending my position

Why? If someone running a company really believes that the line will soon stop going up and AI won't be replacing anyone, they could make the bet of strategically not investing in any AI initiatives, and instead investing in hiring and upskilling people who want to work without AI, and then just wait for the inevitable crash of all their competitors, no?

What does a glider have that a continuously running claw lacks?

I'm not anthropomorphizing them, I'm animifying.

The "Yesterday's weather" argument works perfectly just up to the point when it doesn't.

> ... they cost more to run than all you and your fellow farmers have ...

But the financial situation is that running a single AI agent costs significantly less than you'd have to pay a human to do the same task.

And I don't see what you're getting from The Chinese Room - that thought experiment relies on there being no external difference at all, right?

Not as far as I know, but I have personally seen my coding agents take on a prompt like "See if you can port this project to typescript", and work for hours, defining a myriad of subgoals and continuously summoning and managing subagents while developing ad-hoc tools and skills.

There is to the best of my knowledge no fundamental limitation to having an agent/claw go on like this for 80 years with a prompt like "live your life to the fullest".

I don't get the argument; how do you decide between using 'a' or 'an'?

Then according to your argument, the moral consideration only depends on the moral agent, right? So if tomorrow AIs decide that they are alive, it would be morally incumbent upon them to adapt the world to support themselves, correct?

Being a process doesn't preclude something from being an entity. In particular, all of us living organisms have our constituent atoms constantly replaced, and we don't typically consider that a risk to our sense of self.

I'll use this opportunity to recommend The Selfish Gene, which puts forward a strong argument for how the actual competitive battlefield on Earth is between genes, while us humans and everything else we call "life" are their "survival machines" (read: technology that they use).

The syntax? I got 99 problems with js, but syntax ain't one of them. It's just C-style syntax, no?

And hotels.com

What we're seeing now reminds me of that pub dialogue about running in Back to the Future 3, paraphrased:

> Jeb: "If everybody's got one of these auto-whatsits, does anybody code anymore?"

> Doc Brown: "Of course we code. But for recreation. For fun."

> Jeb: "Code for fun? What the hell kind of fun is that?"

Just for a bit of context, this site is from over a decade ago, at which point almost everyone outside of Ukraine used the old spelling of Kiev, despite the official transliteration change to Kyiv from 1995 [0]. Ukraine ended up having to run the KyivNotKiev [1] campaign to get other countries to adopt the new spelling, which mostly gradually happened over the last few years. But I think it's a bit much to expect every resource out there to retroactively update their spelling.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Kyiv

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev

Ah, thanks for clarifying. To me these are just plain old anthropomorphic animals like the ones you see in kids cartoons, and I wouldn't naturally associate them with the furry subculture, but I suppose it is a slippery slope.

What do you mean? What's furry about the site?

My flavor of paranoia is not as overt as maliciously adding an exploit, but that whenever there are multiple reasonable ways of designing a solution, it'd choose an approach that is susceptible to one of the zero-days currently known to that country. I don't see how reproducibility would help you there.

There's a higher-order concern here that I'm paranoid enough to voice: that if used as a coding agent, an AI model affiliated with a country's government might try to make my software susceptible to attacks by that government's intelligence forces.

And note that I'm not singling out China here.

Could this be a real path to UBI?

There's yet another concern, which they haven't mentioned, and it's that ChatGPT has become a bit of a generic trademark, with a lot of other services launched over the last few years promoting themselves as a "chatgpt for X".

Quite funny to think that we might have AI models meticulously nudging newspaper editors in order to carefully control the public's Overton Window about AI, playing some 5d chess.

Yeah, 75% win rate is a ~200 points Elo difference, which is quite massive.

Please share the script

I didn't mean that users would install them. I meant that if mcp and AI agents continue being popular, then Google and Apple could choose to provide apps with cli sandboxes with the proper permissions. It is a big change, but I just didn't understand the "never"; we've had bigger changes.

> CLIs do not run on mobile and never will

Can you clarify why the never? What's the issue with giving a phone-based AI a sandboxed file system and bash shell?

Well, either that, or a fetish.

Did you mean that to sound distant? Because my reading is that if we have robots reliably doing these sorts of delicate tasks in a decade or two, it would be amazingly revolutionary and disruptive to the economy.