sayYayToLife

>One defining constraint must shape the product

>This constraint limits feature creep and forces identity.

With AI Agents this is a bit outdated. Now I tell people to be maximilist.

Both?

I read pretty dense philosophy and the longer I live, the more I think the writers were just bad writers with good ideas. LLMs can convert poorly written sentences into clear sentences with examples.

Do you live in the US? Because there is a military reason for chasing success for success sake. The US doesnt really have a choice here. We live in a unipolar(or bipolar world) and the US must be number 1, or the international system breaks down and we can expect incredible amounts of war. (Its generally agreed that historically multipolar worlds are the worst to live in).

If you don't live in the US and you are taking advantage of the US security umbrella, sure, you can deny AI and enjoy a curated lifestyle.

But living in the US means we must deal with this.

Do we know if the author has used Claude Opus with OpenClaw or Code?

This is basically how I talked in January and its obsolete now.

I got a feeling these types of programmers are going extinct and their only value is going to be in the transition years. I really can't imagine even security critical defense work being run old school in 10 years.

Alright my theory:

OpenAI has public models that are pretty 'meh', better than Grok and China, but worse than Google and Anthropic. They still cost a ton to run because OpenAI offers them for free/at a loss.

However, these people are giving away their data, and Microsoft knows that data is going to be worthwhile. They just dont want to pay for the electricity for it.

Karl Popper calls this a psychological probability(% chance I go to the gym today). This is different from objective probability (% chance a dice lands on 5).

Imagine the outrage if this happened in the US instead because it's in Europe there's just a bunch of apologists here.

The longer I live I think US citizens just have the highest standards for both morals and life expectations.

Meanwhile Europe is happy to get anything.

Oh look another anti AI article.

Oh they even swore in the title.

Oh and of course it's anti-economics and is probably going to hurt whoever actually follows it.

Three for three. It's not logical it's emotional.

Does this mean Apple, Nintendo, and Disney are at risk too?

I would love to see some justice.

I am only 1 person. FAAMG have reputation management teams/marketing teams that are paid to lie all day.

As bad as the idea of a solution looking for a problem, this is peak science. Copernicus who figured out that the Earth was not at the center of the solar system, he had a solution. The general word is called deduction.

Personally I am an inductivist, I imagine you may be too.

Think top down decisioning is deduction. Bottom up is induction.

You might think induction is amazing but if you ask yourself "Are there any black swans?" and your answer is "No I've never seen any so there can't be any black swans." The issue is you've never actually seen every Swan and actually there are black swans in Australia.

Point being, we don't know if this is a good thing until it's tested.

This is an age-old problem.

Okay at first I was like this music is not my style, but the humor was so good.

Okay at my core I'm an inductionist. However this article is a mere tautology at best.

The article doesn't explain why. It explains a bunch of cases and works backwards to show that the original premise was true. This sounds fine but the end of the article specifically mentioned that this is dangerous because the world doesn't always work like this.

This is the problem with induction, it might work in 99% of cases, I've never seen a Black Swan so there must not be any black swans?

Deduction has more value when it comes to math specifically... I'll admit that as an inductionist.

I suppose this makes me feel a little bit better about a multi-month process that ended up requiring the eight Queens problem.

That said management did not quite understand. They thought that I should have known about the bottleneck (Actually I did but I was told not to prematurely optimize)

I end up writing the program three times, the final solution was honestly beautiful.

Management was not happy. The customer was happy.