jasonsb

Because we've passed the point of no return. There's no need for empty mission statements, or even a mission at all. AI is here to stay and nobody is gonna change that no matter what happens next.

Love the domain name. How did you manage to snag it?

> Honest question, if large portions of labor are automated or marginalized who ultimately buys the goods and services that companies produce?

Once the robots, energy, and weapons all belong to the same small group, that group no longer needs to sell anything to anyone. Production continues, but only for themselves and their enclosed system. The rest of humanity becomes a surplus population that can simply be allowed to die off.

In other words: the economy you’re worried about preserving is already obsolete the moment the owners of the machines no longer require wage slaves or consumers to keep the system running. At that point, mass demand is no longer a feature, it’s a bug that gets patched out.

I always read and review the code and it's true that the old models from 2023/2024 were using a lot of emojis. But that code was garbage. Since LLMs have started to write decent code, I haven't seen one emoji.

Well, it is. Let's say that AI adds emojis to my code/text. Me, a millennial who hates emojis, will tell the AI to delete those emojis and never use them again in my code or my official documents. The gen Z guy who got his first job last week will love to keep them.

> Anyone who has had to clean up AI comments riddled with stupid emojis from their code will understand this.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I code daily, with 80/90% of my work AI-assisted, and never had to clean one emoji.

As for emojis appearing in EHRs, a more likely explanation is the growing presence of Gen Z professionals in healthcare, who are known for integrating emojis into their communication. This trend probably has little to do with AI and more to do with generational habits.

Does it really matter? Even if a billionaire’s kid gets hooked on Coca-Cola or social media, they still have vastly more resources (therapy, education, support) to overcome it. Meanwhile, kids in underprivileged communities don’t get that safety net. For CEOs like Zuckerberg or Coca-Cola’s leadership, that disparity is just a small price to pay for the profits their products generate.

I'm with you. The industry has pivoted from building tools that help you code to selling the fantasy that you won't have to. They don't care about the reality of the review bottleneck; they care about shipping features that look like 'the future' to sell more seats.

No it doesn't, because social media already did that. There's nothing left to be broken.

It doesn't work like that. You need to actually use the model and then go to /activity to see the actual speed. I constantly get 150-200tps from the Big 3 while other providers barely hit 50tps even though they advertise much higher speeds. GLM 4.6 via Cerebras is the only one faster than the closed source models at over 600tps.

You're right, I forgot about that one.

It's all about the hardware and infrastructure. If you check OpenRouter, no provider offers a SOTA chinese model matching the speed of Claude, GPT or Gemini. The chinese models may benchmark close on paper, but real-world deployment is different. So you either buy your own hardware in order to run a chinese model at 150-200tps or give up an use one of the Big 3.

The US labs aren't just selling models, they're selling globally distributed, low-latency infrastructure at massive scale. That's what justifies the valuation gap.

Edit: It looks like Cerebras is offering a very fast GLM 4.6

The average person in the west isn't losing sleep over China either. That anxiety is mostly manufactured by the media pushing the narrative that they are an existential threat. Maybe they are, I don't know. But what I do know is that western companies love it when they can sell you overpriced products made in China, but panic the moment chinese companies sell the exact same product at a fair price.

Tariffs might keep Chinese EVs out of the US, but they don't stop US influence from fading everywhere else. South America is voting with their wallets, and 'buy American' doesn't work when the price is double and the tech is the same.

Unless the US intends to sanction every country that prioritizes value over US geopolitics, this battle is already lost.

Let's meet in the middle: only allow AI data hoarders to train their stuff on your content if the model is open source. I can stand behind that.

> Could you give some specific examples of AI regulations that you think would be good?

Sure, I can give you some examples:

- deceiving someone into thinking they're talking to a human should be a felony (prison time, no exceptions for corporations)

- ban government/law-enforcement use of AI for surveillance, predictive policing or automated sentencing

- no closed-source AI allowed in any public institution (schools, hospitals, courts...)

- no selling or renting paid AI products to anyone under 16 (free tools only)

Ask yourself: who owns the IP you're defending? It's not struggling artists, it's corporations and billionaires.

Stricter IP laws won't slow down closed-source models with armies of lawyers. They'll just kill open-source alternatives.

> I cannot help but feel that discussing this topic under the blanket term "AI Regulation" is a bit deceptive. I've noticed that whenever this topic comes up, almost every major figure remains rather vague on the details. Who are some influential figures actually advancing clearly defined regulations or key ideas for approaching how we should think about AI regulation?

There's a vocal minority calling for AI regulation, but what they actually want often strikes me as misguided:

"Stop AI from taking our jobs" - This shouldn't be solved through regulation. It's on politicians to help people adapt to a new economic reality, not to artificially preserve bullshit jobs.

"Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections.

Agreed. Regulate AI? Sure, though I have zero faith politicians will do it competently. But more IP protection? Hard pass. I'd rather abolish patents.

Commercial properties often have enough roof area to meet most of their daytime demand on-site. And industrial consumption in Western countries has been flat or declining for years, so "stable, high-voltage generation" may face less demand than assumed.

> Typical savings: 60-90% on most requests, since Gemini Flash is often free/cheapest, but you still get Claude or GPT-4 when needed.

This claim seems overstated. Accurately routing arbitrary prompts to the cheapest viable model is a hard problem. If it were reliably solvable, it would fundamentally disrupt the pricing models of OpenAI and Anthropic. In practice, you'd either sacrifice quality on edge cases or end up re-running failed requests on pricier models anyway, eating into those "savings".

All these tips and tricks just to get out-coded by some guy rawdogging Copilot in VS Code.

OpenAI doesn't want you to use their models outside of their own products, which is why the API and integrations like Github Copilot are super slow.

The price is ridiculous. You can buy a premium heat pump water heater for ~$2000 and instantly save $4500.

100% this. I'm sick and tired of alarmist news and scapegoats when politicians and greedy energy corporations are to blame for everything. Yes, AI consumes more energy because we're using AI so by this logic we are to blame for everything.

Engagement Metrics 2.0 are here. Getting your answer in one shot is not cool anymore. You need to waste as much time as possible on OpenAI's platform. Enshittification is now more important than AGI.

Of course this principle applies to Gmail too, if you’re willing to accept the absurdity. I could copy-paste copyrighted NYT snippets into emails and send them to everyone I know. Under the same logic, the NYT would be entitled to have access to everyone's Gmail account in order to verify who's sending what and get compensated if anyone is infringing their copyright.

That’s not justice. That’s legal extortion.

I get that people are angry at OpenAI. But let’s not confuse outrage over one company with support for broken systems. Patent and copyright trolls thrive when we normalize overreach, whether it’s AI training data or email threads. If we let corporations weaponize IP law to control every digital whisper, we’re not protecting creators, we’re burying free expression under a mountain of lawsuits.

No. There's a critical difference between AI as a tool and AI as a product. When you use a tool, the responsibility to verify the output is yours. But when you pay for a product like Tesla's Full Self-Driving, the company assumes liability for its performance. If FSD causes harm, Tesla must be held responsible.

> Household electricity prices in 1st half of 2025: -0.5% - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/... - October 29th, 2025

This statement from the EU is not just irrelevant, it’s deliberately misleading. Claiming a modest –0.5% change after a staggering 40% price surge, while oil and gas prices remain near 2019 levels and solar and wind capacity has grown tenfold, feels like a slap in the face to consumers. And yet, you’re amplifying this technically true (but deeply deceptive) narrative because it conveniently props up a flawed argument.

Those other reasons being none other than pure greed.

Total energy consumption has peaked in Europe in 2021 while prices go up like they're building a data center in every european country every 60 minutes.