ryeights

This reads like satire from a Slate commentary piece on Citizens United. I suppose we’re just waiting around until the majority of corporations in the US are formed and operated by AI agents. And then…

Not necessarily contradictory. If all your peers are using AI, you might feel you have to use it too to avoid falling behind… especially with curved grade thresholds

I think you need a stronger analogy than "they both take questions and produce answers," especially since search engines don't answer questions.

In what sense is an LLM analogous (much less reducible to) a search engine?

I’m trying to discuss a scenario where the labor class becomes extraneous/unnecessary to the elite class, not an AI takeover.

You saw something kinda analogous in a movie once, therefore it's impossible? Am I the one basing my views off of science fiction?

The antidote to AI psychosis is not denial. We owe it to ourselves to be humble and consider the possibility that LLM technology leads to general intelligence. The capabilities of coding agents today are certainly outside my wildest imagination circa GPT-3 launch in 2020.

The cynical conclusion of AGI is that most humans will be enslaved or disposed of. We won't be forced to continue working for pay despite being slower, less intelligent, and more expensive than machines.

So I can build my entire app in a WebKit wrapper and call it native? I think ‘native’ in this context is well-understood to mean eschewing web or cross-platform renderers

Electron sits on native rendering primitives. Do you suggest that every developer who wants rich interactive text in their app should write a text rendering engine from the ground up?

So you’re trying to tell me that NOx and diesel particulates are not harmful to human health?

“AI is whatever hasn't been done yet” — Larry Tesler

>1. Scott Alexander is famous for writing about topics he knows little about. I'm glad to see he's found a subject he knows little about but so does everyone else.

This is kinda laughable. Scott has been thinking and writing about AI for a long time

I understand and I don't care. Your personal interests as a diesel truck driver don't override others' interests in health and clean air

So what? It's anti-social behavior. What thought does the deleted diesel truck driver give to his fellow citizens, whose otherwise reliable respiratory systems are weakened and made more susceptible to failure by toxic fumes and particulates?

Reads like great satire to me.

My premise is that a vibe-coded app will be indistinguishable from a ‘hand-crafted’ one. So in that scenario the chemist wins, because the developer has no value to add.

It is clear to me that SWE and ML research will be subsumed before other domains because labs are focusing their efforts there, in their quest to build self-improving systems.

s/software engineer/secretary/

s/creating software/typing correspondence/

In a world where software programming/architecting is solved by AI, value will accrue to people with expertise in other domains (who have now been granted the power of 1000 expert developers), not the people whose skillsets have been made redundant by better, faster and cheaper AI tools.

Yes, but Anthropic didn’t already know the answers. In the OSS ‘reproductions’, they fed the model the one file that actually has a vuln and even told it which parts of the code to focus on. This is obviously a much easier task.

If OSS models are equally up to the task, why not find novel vulnerabilities?

Remember, that's the most expensive this capability will ever be.

Sorry, this guy is a hack and this is cope. Most of the things he's saying re: Mythos are objectively false.

- Open source models found the same bugs? Sure, if you tell them "here is a file which may contain a vulnerability, look for a bug in how function XYZ handles ABC"

- It's all mostly false positives? According to Anth, each suspected vulnerability came with a bug report and working PoC...

- "Humans had to fix the things"? As in, he thinks models are incapable of writing the patch?

That wouldn’t be complete though. I mean that an outside observer could view a simulation of the universe by your model, down to the subatomic particle level, and find no differences with the real world. There is no measurable “consciousness field” as far as we know, so how can our science even begin to approach the topic?

The original formulation of Chinese Room deals with ‘understanding’. One supposes that understanding implies some form of subjective experience. I take OP’s use of ‘think’ to refer to an equivalent concept

Is it surprising? It seems likely you could build a complete working model of the universe with no provision for consciousness at all. As far as modern science goes, it's an intractable problem

If the "new software engineering" is Jira, planning, and convincing PM's about viability all day, you can count me out!

Until recently I would have described myself as an AI skeptic. HN has been a great source for cope on the AI subject over the years. You can find nitpicks, caveats, all sorts of reasons to believe things aren’t as significant as they seem. For me Opus 4.5 was the inflection point where I started to think “maybe this isn’t a bubble.” The figures in this report, if accurate, are terrifying.

>I had no idea this story existed and woke up to claims that I was obviously* suppressing it.

To be fair, it seems you’re saying the submission was being suppressed, just not intentionally. Lots of props of course for transparency and reboosting the story

Those things all exist within our conscious realm. “Human brain cells in a vat used for computation” suggests horrors beyond understanding

>If we are serious about climate policy, we have to set up trade barriers proportional to greenhouse gases emissions to limit this effect.

Consumption economies can incentivize production economies to emit less.

We simply drop a giant tub of baking soda into the ocean every now and then.