nemo44x

We create 25% more new jobs that never existed before than jobs that are forever destroyed as obsolete every year. In the USA.

Time to get AC in homes. Especially in the Uk Where homes are generally terraced/attached, small, and decently insulated. The costs to operate wouldn’t be too painful.

Secondly, much of Western Europe (except Norway) needs to figure out how to bring energy costs way down. It’s so expensive compared to the USA and Canada and people take home significantly less money.

It can but it takes a very long time to bring food online. To develop real estate.

Especially when the real numbers of immigrants is much higher.

It takes time to train more doctors, to raise more cattle, and to build more homes. Way more than the rate of immigration over the last 30 years.

It makes rich families richer though. But it hasn’t been good for working people and the community culture the country once had.

And it’s a good thing all that wealth is evenly distributed and not hoarded nearly exclusively by a small class of families.

I can assure you mass immigration is not good for the working class families of this country despite what an economist might say in aggregate. The reality is more people drives up the costs of food, shelter, medicine, and other resources that are not very elastic.

Don’t overthink it.

I don’t know but I wonder if people that have insomnia or similar difficulty falling asleep (anxiety, etc) struggle with a CPAP. I am fortunate to fall asleep very easily, usually within 3-5 minutes or even faster. And I use a CPAP (nose saddles not a full mask), and prefer it to not using one while sleeping. The way it just opens all passageways is relaxing and I think helps fall asleep even more quickly.

If you truly have sleep apnea it’s not just about feeling refreshed. There could be other reasons you’re tired.

But sleep apnea is really bad for your heart and lungs and does damage to them over time.

Get 2 opinions. And yes about weight - some people won’t have Apnea if they get their BMI to like 25 or whatever.

Saying that I have a CPAP machine and love it.

The problem today is we had 10 years of “learn to code” and a a lot of people did. Similar to 2001. 2009 wasn’t really bad for tech since we had a huge shortage of workers in the space. Companies would hire straight out of mid-tier universities. CS departments were desperate for students.

Roundup has saved far more lives than it may have cut short, if any.

School was, is, and will always be a filter to determine who should manage and access resources.

It’s like all these things though - it’s not a real production worthy product. It’s a super-demo. It looks amazing until you realize there’s many months of work to make it something of quality and value.

I think people are starting to catch on to where we really are right now. Future models will be better but we are entering a trough of dissolution and this attitude will be widespread in a few months.

For years the advantage big tech had was that capital expenditure was minimal and now with every big tech company trying to become an AI company they’re blowing gobs of money on data centers and everything that goes inside of them.

AI is a huge bubble right now and although it is useful and future models will be more so, the truth is that it’s a lot of pie in the sky too.

Well, I guess we’re going to fire all the Ping-pong players at the office and replace them with these robots.

There’s very little R&D cost. Possibly little cap-ex as the infra to build exists.

Probably aren’t seeing the promised productivity improvements of AI in terms of shipping production code and not just “super demos” that aren’t robust. So they want to see if the withers are really putting in the time or if the models struggle past a level of complexity that stalls or reverses early gains.

The funny thing about AI is counterintuitive. It will put an even higher value on quality as quantity is now essentially worthless. I don’t believe AI can generate high quality on its own. It needs to be used and manipulated to generate higher quality outputs than a human or AI alone can.

> We’re automating the interesting work with AI and leaving the drudge work for humans.

I think you have that backwards.

For thousands of years people were unsure if they’d have food the next day and still had a lot of kids. This happens today in the poorest parts of the world.

People are not having kids because they don’t want them. Those that can use birth control and failing that access abortion, etc.

People stopped having kids precisely the moment they had the option to.

It’s a weak take and here’s why. Huge tasks like going to the moon are made up of many different individuals that have different goals. Some are rocket scientists that want to innovate on the science of rocketry. Others are government admins with political goals.

So to call the entire thing “political” ignores the purpose of those involved and critical to the outcome at the expense of just labeling it all “political”.

What’s a better method for determining how to utilize and distribute resources? To determine where energy should be used and where it should be moved from?

Don’t apologize to these types of people. It will only make your problem worse as now you’re an admitted offender. Ignore them or better yet laugh at them to put their insane ideas back on the margins where they belong.

AI is unbelievably useful and will continue to make an impact but a few things:

- The 80/20 rule still applies. We’ve optimized the 20% of time part (a lot!) but all the hype is only including the 80% of work part. It looks amazing and is, but you can’t escape the reality of ~80% of the time is still needed on non-trivial projects.

- Breathless AI CEO hype because they need money. This stuff costs a lot. This has passed on to run of the mill CEOs that want to feel ahead of things and smart.

- You should be shipping faster in many cases. Lots of hype but there is real value especially in automating lots of communication and organization tasks.

You still need to review and edit.

Essentially what happened after .com bust. For years CS departments had to sell themselves and convince people there was a future in computers.

Not that AI is the same as Websites all going broke. But no one can see the future and it’s unlikely that deep technical knowledge will be obsolete.

Why shouldn’t it be? You can gather and form your thoughts, create a draft, and then have a LLM rewrite it for you. You can write in the style you prefer so you can focus on thoughts and then have the LLM rewrite it in the appropriate style for the audience.

I think that’s possible too but the trouble is training them. LLMs are built on decades of human input. A new framework, programming language, database, etc doesn’t have that.

We are in the low hanging fruit phase right now.

It’s in the best interest for companies to list publicly though. We want as many people in the country invested in as many good companies. Equity in the country is mutual self interest. Similar to why we want a nation of home owners, not renters.

You get 80% done in 20% of the time. The LLM shrinks that 20%. So a 100 task maybe takes 5 hours instead of 20 which is great. But the remaining 80 hours are not as improved. So a 100hr job takes ~85 hours which is very good.

This is in-line with Googles study showing about a 10% productivity increase and other research I’ve read. I suspect this will increase with more integrations and workflow adaptations.

But even after power tools changed how quickly carpenters can frame and rough-in a house, the finishing work (which uses power tools too) still takes the majority of the time.

Maybe he was there because he wanted to make a better life for himself and his family. Why is learning to do something because it pays well a bad thing? It’s admirable that someone would do that.

The 80/20 rule doesn’t go away. I am an AI true believer and I appreciate how fast we can get from nothing to 80% but the last “20%” still takes 80%+ of the time.

The old rules still apply mainly.