Germans don't do comedy, Germans do beer.
64 karma · joined June 3, 2026
Less-than-great news for code artisans. You can be brilliant, but can you divine the Right Way to Write It if you're up against an apparatus that starts at "pretty good engineer" then brute-forces its way down an exponential search tree?
The recent terminal UI changes were more fastidious, but even those are easily disabled with CODEX_TUI_DISABLE_KEYBOARD_ENHANCEMENT=1 and the /tui command.
Individual success until now has been a function of personal qualities (skill, attitudes, intangibles), luck, and anti-qualities (cheating, corruption, duping). In many areas (e.g. investing) human qualities are losing their edge thanks to AI and other automation. Luck averages itself out. That might leave anti-qualities as the putative determinant of success going forward.
So at a minimum you have a 3-player game of good humans, bad humans, and AI. Maybe AI turns into Daleks. Maybe good humans end up leveraging AI to castigate bad ones. Or maybe bad humans use AI to put the good ones out of their misery. Then there are the more complex multi-stage games based on the dynamics you mention.
They're particularly awful. Borrowers are counting on overlapping Ω and /. Heads they win, tails you lose. Lender agents instantly repackage them into CMOs which then get laundered by a 1-10 layer onion of balance sheets that appear decreasingly exposed. Owning these as a stockholder principal is almost unknowable until it's too late. See 2008 crisis.
They could be replaced with equity. Every month the resident purchases 1/360 of the house at current prices plus the co-investor's profit and rent portion. The unsold asset portion stays on the latter's balance sheet. The resident doesn't steal the upside, the co-investor's agent doesn't camouflage away the downside from the principal. Foreclosure no longer exists.
The political economy of housing also changes for the better.
> How about retirement assets later in life?
If the elderly investor is wealthy stocks are just fine, all risk goes to inheritors anyway. Otherwise they should be insuring their life expectancy rather than minimizing return variability. This is either done through the government or through a private pension fund. If the pension fund goes under the government should step in. In no case is debt better.
And in any case, in a debt-less world stocks are way less risky. There's no financial leverage in the chain.
> If a company goes under, debt is generally higher in the asset recovery waterfall.
You can have recovery categories of stock too. For example, they can kick in in investor fraud and catastrophic losses.
> enable people and businesses to attempt things without needing all the cash up front
You can do this with equity too.
Let Ω be the core of a normal outcome distribution and / be the payoff hockey stick. Lenders want /``Ω and aren't even willing to accept /Ω. Average borrowers want superimposed Ω and / while bad borrowers want Ω/.
The rest is a game of information asymmetry and disinformation signaling. Each party is trying to outsmart the other even if the Ω is well above break-even. Often, lenders and borrowers are agents concealing the true game from principals.
Equity is better. There is no /, and strategy considerations are reduced.
Either debt draws vultures into business, or perhaps they're going to go in anyways and that's where they land. Various kinds of debt games were codified into law to make the vulture nests bigger.
Real estate is debt central.
Exactly. We're dancing around the real argument: there's massive amounts of influencing going on (and not only about AI.)
In some cases, there are also nuances that we don't pick up on. Here it's our preference for simplification that's showing up. We set the lossy compression factor higher than it does.
People with high IQ often do this IRL. There's training tension in this area. Intelligence and overcomplication correlate and are hard to extricate.
The ideal detector should incorporate multiple methods. Someone should make a site that rates these for each detection method then adds them into an overall score.
I'm not installing a browser plugin. I'll just take a vacation until there's an xcancel-like solution.
Similar, much narrower crises were managed for manufacturing jobs during the worldwide industrialization era. The solution for those displaced by trade was retraining.
Unfortunately, at the moment we have no clue of what workers should be retrained to. Not writing.
> ChatGPT Work combines all three!
The ChatGPT Work model would actually feel safer to me if they created a privacy boundary between the container-managing agent (browser operator/VM manager/code runner/etc) and the chatbot agent. Instead of me not typing privacy-sensitive things to the chatbot to avoid having them in my history, the chatbot would keep my history private from the container agent except on a need-to-know basis. That would remove the "access to private data" from the container's trifecta.
Not perfectly safe of course, just safer. Particularly if I could review the logs between the two agents.
AI scraping might be bad, but if a particular case that's actually a DDoS becomes the cause celebre against AI scraping, it will weaken the argument, not strengthen it.
- Using a terribly inefficient way to redownload the same commits as e.g. HTML diffs, possibly the most inefficient.
- Putting in tons of CPU cycles to surpass the Anubis PoC.
- Putting in other kinds of active effort like reworking access methods and buying "residential proxies" that are probably illegal in most jurisdictions.
This sounds more like escalating DDoS than AI scraping.
If you just mean that the result was technically incorrect or off, that's probably true, but it doesn't affect my argument.