stackbutterflow

This question cannot be asked in good faith on a user board. It requires an 800 pages book on politics, history, philosophy, economics to be properly answerered and it would barely scratch the surface.

You might as well ask similar questions about most basic laws and concepts behind how western societies work.

It's also trivially true that an AI has at least once been able to write a working hello world.

When someone claims that AI can't generate working code I assume that it means consistently generating working code. We're talking about a tool. It has to work more often than not and on codebases that we tend to work with, i.e legacy code.

Personally I don't claim that because I'm using everyday to generate working code.

10 days ago someone was making this claim about copilot on legacy code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46932609

> Github Copilot has been great in getting that code coverage up marginally but ass otherwise.

I spend between 1 and 2h a day on hn and I barely know what openclaw is. I've seen it mentioned once or twice and checked their website but that's all.

If one lets AI FOMO since the release of chatgpt drive them they'd be glued to their screen 24/7.

I'm curious to know what kind of editing you do that you need this so much?

I'm saying this to help you. Whether you give it a shot makes no difference to me. This topic is being discussed endlessly everyday on all major platforms and for the past year or so the consensus is strongly against using copilot.

If you want to see if your project and your work can benefit from AI you must use codex, Claude code or Gemini (which wasn't a contender until recently).

Copilot is notoriously bad. Have you tried (paid plans) codex, Claude or even Gemini on your legacy project? That's the bare minimum before debating the usefulness of AI tools.

Allowing politics on HN doesn't mean discussing politics in every thread. If it's a story about someone who improved performance of their system by using Rust then sure there's no need to bring anything political. But threads about Nvidia, Tesla, encryption, internet blackouts, social media, startups investments, etc, all warrants political discourse.

Maybe it's time to start auditing social network platforms and disallow certain practices.

Conversely it's true for the parent comment. Being able to eat food from any country is a plus only to those who are into that hobby. Personally it ranks pretty low in my list of things that make a city a great city. And if we're talking about food, access to fresh, high quality and affordable produce is way more important than being able to eat Afghan food at 3am. These criteria are arbitrary and don't make a city better than another imho.

Tech billionaires is probably the first thing an AGI is gonna get rid of.

Minimize threats, dont rock the boat. We'll finally have our UBI utopia.

However conservatives define conservatism in their mind it always ends up for a vote for the bigots in the ballot.

Fair, but we need to account for the influence of the 1st-amendment-propelled far right discourse in the US on German politics to know how (in)effective German speech laws are.

And we've seen what allowing people to promote hate speech with no restraint does to a nation.

When it's over, and it will be, Americans need to start from scratch, iterate and write a new constitution, create new institutions and build a new system.

And some HN users are being paid a lot of money to write software that facilitates the actions of this administration and/or further destabilizes democracy.

One problem is the billionaires themselves. It's too much power and influence in the hand of a single person. They can fun newspapers at loss and have them spread any kind of lies or narrowly biased news for decades.

Billionaires would be less of a problem in a world where we'd all be multi millionaires.

There's nothing substantive to the comment I'm replying to.

It's explaining in too many words that might makes right. We all know that.

On the other hand I believe, but I could be wrong, that the many comments of the sort in this thread are a way for some people to cheer these sort of actions without being too obvious about it because they know it's not a good look in some circles, hn being one. So rather than chanting usa usa usa like their gut tells them too, they resort to such emotionally distanced statements, obvious to everyone, pretending to simply constate the gap in military capabilities of the US versus other powers.

And indeed, I find that appalling.

It's appalling to read that on HN, and there's plenty of comments like this one in this thread.

To think that some like to pretend HN is better than reddit.

> Narrowness of mind is something that makes me uneasy about the tech world.

> The Bay Area has all sorts of autistic tendencies. Though Silicon Valley values the ability to move fast, the rest of society has paid more attention to instances in which tech wants to break things.

> There’s a general lack of cultural awareness in the Bay Area. It’s easy to hear at these parties that a person’s favorite nonfiction book is Seeing Like a State while their aspirationally favorite novel is Middlemarch.

It's refreshing to read someone addressing this aspect of the Mecca of the tech word.

For the reasons above the tech elites are the ones I trust the less and fear the most when they are involved in national and international politics. And I think the current state of the US is directly caused by the rise of post dot com Silicon Valley.

That's different from saying that boeing is too big to fail for example. The US can't accept to lose its only major commercial aircraft manufacturer. Or Intel for similar reasons.

But what you're describing is about keeping the AI bubble from popping. Can a bubble really be too big too fail?

Every single time. You look into the source and realize that there's nothing behind the claims.

It's like some people really want to feel angry and accept the most vague or fabricated statements as real facts.

But anytime you sit down and try to go the root of the issue in good faith you realize they really was nothing. Best you can find is someone on Twitter that said something stupid and then they use it as if that means there's a whole apparatus enforcing national wide policy based on that person's tweet.

For us it's too late. But we must push for better laws and build better systems for those that come after us.

Audit at random? With severe penalty in case of non compliance.

Then what about work from home? Does it increase mortality?

Then the former billionaires won't have the ability to influence society to pass laws that favours them. We'll finally be able to build a society for everyone.

> The outcome is the same.

That's the problem. The outcome is not the same. It couldn't be more different. That's how one side knows they're right.

> Fourier argued that the distribution of heat through the rod could be written as a sum of simple waves.

How do you even begin to think of such things? Some people are wired differently.

Because people who say that are delusional.

If you don't need capital you don't need capitalism.

How ironic if that's how it ends.

A take home should come with a project already set up that you're asked to modify.

Most don't and they waste your time setting up all the boilerplate.