This works the same way irl too. The US is one of the most heavily propagandized populations in history. You have to be talking to a very progressive, very politically savvy group to not constantly run into the usual knee jerk canned responses the second you bring up any criticism of military spending, foreign policy, or the panopticon. Probing of those responses in family or social settings for actual justification shows there’s no first principle reasoning behind them, just a vague unease about discussing the topics, like they’re sacrilege.
I’m sure arrogance is a non-zero factor, but decades of anti-labor propaganda is likely a bigger contributor.
Ask 10 people in the street about their opinion of unions, and 8 of them will regurgitate some vague concern about union leadership corruption, protection of “lazy workers” or exorbitant dues, rather than cite one of the many hard-won historical victories against exploitation or unsafe working conditions over the years. That’s no accident.
Assuming high-quality models are around for the foreseeable future, and at this point I’m convinced that they will be. I think we’re moving into an era where breadth and hybridization of skill sets will become more valuable than pure technical depth. We’ll need more “wide T” shaped people that can exercise good UX, product, and architectural judgement and fewer “long T” shaped technical purists.
This puts large orgs at a disadvantage because they are built to coordinate work across a collection of narrowly scoped roles and keep people in their lane, so they aren’t built to hire for and leverage broad skillsets.
It’s requiring all my willpower not to take out a second mortgage and build a gallery wall filled with these. That image transition is gross but I guess it takes a lot more steps to move all those pigment layers around.
Keep people in “system 1” thinking to control them. Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up, it’s clear that although these fault lines always existed in US society, fringe opinions have been massively signal-boosted by bots for quite some time. I suspect there’s been a psychological Cold War going on online for at least the last decade or two, with a whole ecosystem of grifters and ragebait view farmers bottom-feeding off of state sponsored PsyOps, leading a corrupt inner circle of elite opportunists to take advantage of the resulting anger for personal gain. We’ll probably never get to tease apart what was a natural side effect of social media and what was engineered deliberately but I bet the story would be every bit as fascinating as the Manhattan project.
I think we want algorithmic feeds, we just want humane ones instead of adversarial ones. Give me a feed that prioritizes close friends and family first, important milestones over trivialities, impactful news over ragebait. Give me a highly curated version of Reddit with HN quality moderation. Most people would be very happy with that, but it runs counter to the advertising incentives and engagement metrics which drive the industry.
Hard agree. Modern frontier models will give you a surprisingly solid first pass at a concept if prompted with a clear initial description and a handful of well-guided feature refinement rounds in an afternoon. That said, if you have a high bar for things like concise, well-architected codebases and strong, intuitive UX (the two main components of “polish” imo), you’ll find it takes a long time to get from Pareto-decent to truly polished.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think if the progression of technology has shown us anything, it’s that there will be constant competitive and social pressures being applied to use these tools more and more and that pressure will race far ahead of any privacy, consumer protections, public education and societal wellbeing counter forces. So opt-out ends up being a rapidly shrinking iceberg in practice.
It feels icky, and my default is not to side with megacorps engaged in blanket surveillance, but I can’t really fault Anthropic here. The correct setup should be a law that protects this sort of interaction with a chat bot as privileged, along the lines of HIPAA-mode. Use a classifier or some sort of “private mode” toggle to tell the platform you’re engaging in privileged communication ala dear diary, and then a much higher legal standard needs to apply to protecting that data (no training, same protections as doctor / psychologist interactions). Even a therapist has a legal duty-to-report in certain situations.
I tend to think this way as well, though I find team stochastic parrot is shrinking by the day. It is very difficult to explain it to people who don’t have at least some grasp of what’s going on inside an LLM, and how they’re trained. We have no psychological “immune system” for something that mirrors our ability to deliver an apparently well-reasoned response to a question in our own language. All our instincts tell us to assign it sentience and treat it as an independent actor with it’s own internal motivations and personality. Even I catch myself doubting that a pile of matrix multiplication isn’t “alive” in some way after using it for a while.
Some are conditioned, but I think there will always be a subset of people that just feel like they are the “right people” that everyone else should emulate. The system feels like it’s there to protect them, strong authority makes them feel safe, and they have a strong instinct to conform.
They’ve never been on the wrong end of a political witch hunt, colonized, or felt like they were being attacked for wrongthink, so they don’t understand why everyone else can’t just be “good, law-abiding citizens” like them. Seems utterly alien to me, but I’ve known more than a few.
If these cloud providers had needed a standard customer acquisition strategy to grow to their current size, hard caps and other “training wheels” features would already be in place to get people interested in and comfortable using the platform, with the hope of eventually getting a foothold into Enterprise like most SaaS startups have to do (“enjoy our product on a side project and then recommend us to your CTO!”). But AWS and GCP got to start as in-house providers for their own constellations of massive sites and back out from that to serving other hyper scale businesses first. The lack of friendly on-ramps and starter account features is a reflection of that origin more than anything.
Yeah I’m having a much better time reading Opus 5.5 output today vs. 5’s wall of nonsense. You still get a few telltale turn of phrases, though the load-bearing smoking guns haven’t turned up yet. It’s still a bit verbose compared to what I’d ideally like, but it’s tolerable now.
Code-wise it seems to still nitpick, especially in reviews, but it doesn’t seem to rabbit hole quite as badly on tangents and scope-creep. These are just first impressions though. It’ll take a few weeks of regular use to really have a sense of it.
Yes, one of the primary dysfunctions I see in business environments is a culture that doesn’t create space for timeboxed and clear discussion of tradeoffs. Everyone must have both the _appetite for_ and _implicit or explicit permission to have_ a reasonable discussion of option A vs option B and the long vs short term costs and benefits of each. There must be enough discipline to not rabbit hole or scope creep and decisions must be captured somewhere in a concise way so that everyone who is impacted is informed, and everyone who will inherit the downstream consequences can understand and articulate the decision chain that led to current state.
This is rarely if ever done in a sensible way. Instead you find Managers, Engineers or PMs avoiding troublesome stakeholders, hallway convos or Slack DMs that are never properly written into public record in a searchable/readable way, last minute overrides from higher ups based on limited context of the problem space or their own unaligned career goals, poor recordkeeping, panic mode bandaid fixes when systems break, etc...
IMO a lot of the “meat proxy” and “loop obsession” behavior we’re seeing is simply people using the sense of short term productivity gains as self-soothing against anxiety from corporate dysfunction that they have no control over.
I would listen to every single episode of a podcast that could get the real skinny, not the sanitized feel-good post-facto rationalization, from founders who had a legitimate shot at being a major player in an industry but chose to sell out during their meteoric rise.
Me too. Almost every Sci-Fi AI proceeds from the premise that we will make something very obviously machine and then have to train it to seem more human. I was completely caught off guard by us taking the approach of distilling all available human output into a statistical model and using it to brute-force something resembling thought and personality through sheer data processing scale.
The unsurprising part once it was clear that approach was viable, was that humans wouldn’t be able to help but anthropomorphize it. I feel like the movie Ex Machina is more relevant than ever.
Yeah, most of the list is pretty dismal, but there are some bright spots. Sonic movies. Fallout, Last of Us (and don’t forget Cyberpunk: Edgerunners) for TV.
The original Castlevania animated show was good, shame about the Warren Ellis situation. Would have loved to see him write Nocturne as well (which was fun but just had a much weaker script).
Also, I don’t think people have realized how much farmers markets now suffer from “dropshippers taking over Etsy” syndrome. Unless it’s a stand selling one or two specific things from a named farm or local producer, it’s likely you’re getting a lot of the same stuff that goes to the grocery stores, just at a markup.
Direct-from-farm delivery boxes are a better bet, at least the mainstay ones, but they’re certainly more expensive and the variety is more obviously seasonal (as you would expect).
Neither of these is a solution to nutrition at scale. It’s difficult to balance the economies of scale that consolidated distribution brings against the corruption that comes along with increased supplier leverage. Monopsony is just as pernicious as Monopoly (and they tend to feed each other, with large grocery and restaurant chains preferring large distributors).
I got an M1 Max studio w/ 64gb when they first came out and I love it. Price was obviously a lot more reasonable at the time. I’m fortunate to have dedicated office space, and there is definitely a nice psychological effect to having a desktop in a specific spot and “going to the office”.
I’ve since purchased an m3 MacBook Air as my thin client and for lightweight travel use, and when my wife needs to take a call in the office or whatever I pop out to the living room and either hop on Remote Desktop or SSH into my Studio. Highly recommend this setup. If you’re primarily doing thin client on a local network, a neo should be fine for that (and to use as a media player/communicator around the house).
That said, I have been eyeballing Omarchy…
Fair points all around. I am perhaps unduly extrapolating from a lifetime of there always being a “superpower” and assuming that the power vacuum left by US decay will be inevitably and directly filled by China.
In truth, I don’t think anyone can predict how things will play out at this point. China may well settle for regional control and having a globe full of trading partners with whom they work to build trust, they may double down on their “loan shark” leverage strategy with other developing nations, or they may build up their military and go full colonizer, which may or may not erupt into a hot war. The US might go long slow decline, or may erupt into civil war or widespread civil disobedience, or unlikely as it seems get its act together and course correct. The EU might fall to infighting and dissolve or rally and lead. Rogue nations might pull a truly batshit move with nukes or bioweapons. Who knows how India and SEA will play out at this point? Climate change acceleration will likely put incredible strain on all systems, and the jury is out on the ultimate trajectory/timeline of AI and robotics.
We have been blessed and cursed to live in interesting times if nothing else.
I think a lot of this is the cultural force of the US being the gravitational center of world politics and finance for several decades. It’s always had a strong anti-intellectual faction, and now as we enter it’s “decaying Roman Empire” phase, it will behave increasingly erratically as it’s elite strip it for parts and the citizenry watch in shock.
As China rises to become the new gravitational center, it will be interesting to see how they reshape things in their image. On the one hand, they seem to be more engineering-brained than lawyer-brained, which bodes well (might be a more viable path to cyberpunk). But just as the west has been haunted by its history of white supremacy, China will be haunted by its history of Han supremacy, so I am not holding my breath that we net out to some sort of multi-cultural utopia.
Another factor beyond individual suitability to remote work (which certainly varies person to person and even within a person’s lifetime due to lifestyle changes), is the work situation itself.
One thing I don’t see mentioned in these discussions much is that someone might be perfectly content WFH when given clear goals and autonomy to execute in a neutral political environment, but do a few unexplained mass layoffs, give muddy direction or tighten the leash with stricter policies or new monitoring software and watch paranoia and depression take root (this is true in-office as well but I think gets amplified over Slack due to a stronger prisoner’s dilemma effect).
Unfortunately due to the power differential, any disruption to output caused by these situations will still be blamed on the individual contributor.
Cybersecurity has long been a climate change sort of problem. A vague diffuse threat that is seen as an inconvenient distraction to leadership and moneyed-interests, easy to blame other factors when something occasionally goes terribly wrong.
People are so uncomfortable thinking about the true extent of the systemic risk that they will happily slurp up distractions, excuses, scams and performative fig-leaf solutions rather than face down the cost of a real system-wide solution. Meanwhile, those occasional black swan disasters are becoming more and more commonplace as we acclimate to that being “just the way things are”.
An unseasonably warm summer here, a database breach there, c’est la vie.
Agreed. Not to say there is no such thing as franchise fatigue, but fundamentally it’s about quality. The large studios expect us to just gorge ourselves on anything with a favorite logo or name on it like it’s a brand loyalty thing, but movies are about storytelling and emotional resonance. Odyssey made me feel things, so did Spider-Man, so did Obsession. Supergirl did not. Simple as that.
Yeah, if anything it’s more like product management meets tech lead (with the social part of both roles removed), not people management. The meat of good prompting is good requirements gathering and clear descriptions of things like acceptance criteria, then setting up systems and tools your agents can use to verify how well they are meeting your product and technical requirements.