kaibee

Its like seeing a dog play basketball badly. You're too stunned to be like "no don't sign him to <home team>".

That's kind of where AI-agent-coding is now too, though... software is more flexible.

They probably aren't really. At least in orgs I worked at, writing the code wasn't usually the bottleneck. It was in retrospect, 'context' engineering, waiting for the decision to get made, making some change and finding it breaks some assumption that was being made elsewhere but wasn't in the ticket, waiting for other stakeholders to insert their piece of the context, waiting for $VENDOR to reply about why their service is/isn't doing X anymore, discovering that $VENDOR_A's stage environment (that your stage environment is testing against for the integration) does $Z when $VENDOR_B_C_D don't do that, etc.

The ecosystem as a whole has to shift for this to work.

Each individual trained model... sure. But otoh you can look at it as a very wide junior with "infinite (only limited by your budget)" willpower. Sure, three years ago they were GPT-3.5, basically useless. And now they're Opus 4.6. I wonder what the next few years will bring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

This is a nonsense claim. How many flat screen TVs could you buy for a pound of gold over a 'long time scale'? Cancer treatments? Acres of land in midwest? Hours of a normal person's time? The fact of the matter is that you cannot actually store labor or time for later, so the amount of stuff you can get your gold is gonna vary wrt the broader economy. Economic reality on the ground is what actually determines the 'value' of your gold. And look, if you want some asset that you're pretty sure you could still trade for bread after the apocalypse or whatever, gold isn't the worst choice. And its deflationary, as the amount of gold isn't increasing at pace with the productivity of the global economy. And people like to hoard it when the future becomes less certain, because of the aforementioned 'tradeable for bread after the apocalypse', so I guess its an okay speculative hedge?

Right... which means that every regime knows they have to become a nuclear-armed country.

That would be the idea.

> (And i and j? Which look so similar at a glance? Never. Never!)

This I agree with.

I've heard this one before.

Not OP but that is obviously not his claim..? The cyclist data doesn't identify specific people. How are you missing the distinction between that and a report on specific individuals?

So when you say

> My claim is that the local government doesn't need a warrant to get information from a contractor whose only reason for collecting that information was to produce it as part of their contract.

You're missing the whole disagreement. Yes, even if the contractor might capture specific license plates so that the report can say "yeah this road has X unique users" its very different from a report that says "the road has these specific users".

Yeah, I agree with this.

> necessarily downstream of a moral/ethical value framework. If that is a consequentialist framework, it necessarily also requires a world model. If it is a deontological framework, a world model may or may not be necessary.

I kinda think that deontological frameworks are basically vibes? And if you start to smuggle in enough context about the precise situation where the framework is being applied, it starts to look a lot like just doing consequentialism.

> I...don't agree with the premise of the question that there are "two dominant world models". Even people in the same broad political faction tend to have a wide variety of different world models and moral frameworks; political factions are defined more by shared political conclusions than shared fundamental premises, whether of model or morals; and even within a system like the US where there are two broad electoral coalitions, there more than two identifiable political factions, so even if factions were cohesive around world models, partisan duopoly wouldn't imply a limitation to two dominant world models.

A 'world-model' is a matter of degree and, at a minimum, pluralities of people in any faction don't really have something that meets the bar. And sure, at the limit you could say that reality is entirely subjective because every individual has a unique to them 'world-model'. But I think that goes a bit too far. And I think there's a pretty strong correlation between the accuracy of a given individual's world model and the party they vote for.

As nice as that would be, its only marginally less true.

> everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes.

Nah, some of them are evil on purpose.

but like, in all seriousness. Politics is downstream of a world-model right? And the two predominant world models are giving very different predictions, right? So what are the odds that both models are somehow equally valid, equally wrong (even if its on different cases that somehow happen to add to the same 'moral value')? And we also know that one of the models predicts that climate change isn't real? at some point, a world-model is so bad that it is indistinguishable being a model-free slop machine.

Its not really an intelligence thing. You could have the most intelligent agent, but if the structural incentives for that agent are for example, "build and promote your own library for X for optimal career growth.", you would still have massive fragmentation. And under the current rent-seeking capitalist framework, this is a structural issue at every level. Firefox and Chrome? Multiple competing OSes? How many JS libraries? Now sure, maybe if everyone was perfectly intelligent _and_ perfectly trusting, then you could escape this.

No, we have a problem where 95% of regulations work so well that no one even remembers that they exist (child labor, etc). A media environment that reports on outliers for clicks and corporations that want to dump industrial waste in rivers.

Yes, I'm sure that once all of the wealth is held by a tiny fraction of the elites, they will successfully centrally plan the whole economy for maximum efficiency.

The mistake is assuming that these issues rise into public debate entirely through grassroots, when really its more of a consequence of the incentive structures around politics in the US. The Democratic party doesn't want to upset their donors, but they need some issue to campaign on, rally support etc. And equal rights and such is all well and good, has been successful in the past, and played well with the base. The Republican party, also doesn't want to upset their donors, and opposing the Democrats on equal rights is easy to sell to their base.

As long as the game is about moving the ball of cultural/rights issues around, the wealthy win.

One grain of sand is a small amount of sand. Two grains of sand is a small amount of sand. Therefore, by induction, any amount of grains of sand is a small amount of sand. The Sahara contains a small amount of sand.

This is fun.

In principle, it is 'the bank uses its own money to pay off the debt', as long as you accept that the bank's own 'credit worthiness reputation' and other assets count as 'money'. The hit is _ultimately_ taken by the capital shareholders in the bank, which is the important part.