techblueberry

Against superhuman AI, people are planning accordingly for their irrelevance.

Yes. Please enlighten me otherwise.

Copium seems like the rational response to the loss of millions of job, stability, and the meaning of one’s life.

Billions of people are going to become impoverished and your reaction is to insult someone for grieving?

What do you think is the purpose of life? Is this how you’ll react as one by one the souls of the ones you love most go dark?

How are you defining “AI bubble”? Via the capability trajectory of AI or as an economic analysis. How is “AI bubble” an extreme? Was dotcom bubble an extreme? In retrospect it feels like a median position. Bubbles are super normal not extreme. “AI is useless and will go away” would be the extreme position. Your third possibility could happen in the “AI bubble” world.

I think “AI bubble” gets framed as a technological question about AI capabilities and not a financial one. The bubble may deflate slowly, but if you eat all software or eat all other Field’s something is popping. Anthropic OpenAI and SpaceX are all valued partially as if they’ll be the only ones to succeed.

What would you study? Current AI is basically better than everyone in every field. Have you tried the latest models?

> we'll probably develop superintelligence before they retire.

That ship has sailed:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/inau...

Literally what else? Either you believe the future is AI + Humans, in which case most professions are open to you or you don’t in which case almost none are.

Ironically, this very attitude could lead to AI creating one of the biggest slowdowns in progress in history.

The more I read about LlMs the more I wonder - there’s maybe two levels of emergence. LLMs obviously do more than the underlying vectors suggest. But it seems like they could have a hard limit of their training data. Filling in gaps in our knowledge to be sure, but always feeling like maybe they’re just about to hit the frontier.

Were days out, the default should probably be skepticism for about a decade.

> They will grow exponentially smarter... First twice as smart as a person, then 4x, then 16x, and so on.

How in gods name are they not already like a million times as smart as a person? By what metric are you assuming the growth will be limited to exponential? It should be at least Factorial growth.

“Our message to Microsoft is: you're a great American company, but you've got to hire great American workers,” Vance, who leads the administration’s anti-fraud task force, said at the presser.

But apparently only Microsoft and Adobe?

What an odd thing to say.

“but if most of the blue collars ultimately adapted and survived”

They didn’t though right? That’s why we have Trump promising to reindustrialize America?

Also if I read Terence’ criticism correctly, he echoes a concern that I have that AI will provide a short term sugar high but in the long term slow down progress.

Something like: https://www.normaltech.ai/p/could-ai-slow-science

I wasn’t going to like this - and I was right, but there’s something weird about presenting western classism or conservatism as a victim of progressive whatever when it’s a victim of itself.

You invent this world where everything is capitalism, everything is what you can sell, and then pretend like virtue was attacked by this other ideological frame. Prior conservatives warned of this!

Everything Rubio is describing requires sacrifice and humility which aren’t particularly American traits particularly in 2026.

But loss in faith in American greatness. The left may have more words for it, but it’s not a partisan phenomenon.

The people who truly want to uphold these virtues speak truth to power. If you really want to restore faith in America you do it through action not just words. You give something up.

You think Trump got his buddy Putin to manufacture the thing that lost Trump the 2020 election?

First of all I said we didn’t have to resolve whether or not COVID-19 came from a lab in order to have a discussion of whether or not we should have bioweapons and other viral research labs.

Second of all. No, you racist.

> I fear, with all the division they sewed it is almost certainly going lure them to double down on “Covidiots”.

It's "sowed" from the concept of "sowing seeds" not from sewing textiles.

From Google: `Combined Metaphor: Just as a farmer scatters seeds into soil expecting a harvest, to "sow division" means to plant small acts, words, or policies of conflict that grow into a larger harvest of hostility and separation between people.`

Covid can come from a wet market and we can have a discussion about virus research. These two things aren't connected.

Is the "Why this might be a big deal". Just vibes? I see no references. Where does Genetically engineer variants could have an R0 of 5-12 come from. All the rest of them are just like "if this is bad, it could be bad."

"If it wasn't a big deal, the Russian government wouldn't put much effort into covering it up." Isn't the Russian instinct just cover everything up?

"If there is only one infection, then why quarantine 5 hospitals?"

Because bad to the local community and bad to the world are two different metrics. It could be _real_ bad to the local community, without being threatening globally.

I certainly am Ok with the idea that Krugman could be wrong, but don’t Noah’s graphs show a levelling out of construction jobs after 2022? Like concerningly so?

Also, I’m not sure “data center build-out potentially masks supply-shock in aggregate” is a good thing for Main Street. Maybe it is, or maybe it all comes crashing down at the same time. Or maybe there’s a gentle landing, time will tell.

“ And if so, that means that the AI boom is the only thing standing between countless regular Americans and Trump’s self-destructive chaos.”

I mean I think the thing I’m most worried about is the self-destructive chaos is really bad, and we’re hiding it through macroeconomic pumps and like - this is the basic idea behind vibecesssions since 2020. If the stock market looks good, but everything comes crashing down if an AI bubble pops. Or mom and pop are sufffering because the feedback loop of tariffs was hidden. I don’t think that’s a good thing.

You mean xSI?

I know he means this as a cautionary tale. But this is so cool! It’s exactly the kind of positive externality I’d hope you’d get from banning kids from social media. I didn’t think I’d need more reasons.

Teens especially should not have their socialization mediated by giant social media companies.

And handing your kids to Mark Zuckerberg is a terrible replacement for “closing down the real world places where they can do that outside of school.”

Fix that and only that. Everything else is a distraction.

Finally, this is the kind of content I come to Hacker News for.

You dramatically overestimate the civility of your fellow citizens.

I was hoping with the end of woke 1.0 would come the end of people calling everything they didnt like ‘woke’

I just listened to the this American Life on this today and came to two conclusions.

One - it is sad that Nikole Hannah-Jones was proven wrong. It felt like on some level, her greatest sin was not playing to her caste. We don’t send our kids to those kind of schools. That being said the problem is incredibly hard. Maybe it is rich progressive values removing homework from schools. Maybe not. There was almost certainly some naivety that went into the decision.

2. Her daughter will be fine. Not even - one of the moral oddities of parenting and this parenting story. I want a normal happy life for my kid but normal happy lives aren’t often good defining stories. The strange thing is, if her daughter does well in high school, and goes to Howard and start sharing this story with her peers.

There’s a decent chance this story becomes a defining contradiction in her life. It’s too simple to say “she’ll realize her mother was right”. I wouldn’t go that far. But Having lived through this experience will likely be a powerful motivator and lens with which she looks at the world. The strange morality of it is - it could be good, great even, but it doesn’t mean her mom was right to do it.

A final note might be - one thing I’ve noticed about some left leaning folks who are successful. It’s really good to try and do your part to make the future better for the next generation. But I think sometimes people forget - they played the game and won the meritocracy. Making things fairer or easier shouldn’t get in the way of the hardships you have to overcome to be successful.

Everyone has a test environment, some folks are lucky enough to have a separate prod environment.

This is all very normal.

He actually did say dems were the corporate party. He contrasted the democrats not do something that the Republicans did because Dems were dominated by corporations.

The contrast implies that Republicans are in your words "anti-corporate"

"Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party"

And Republicans did it because.... They're anticorporation?

They thought the product was such garbage they threatened them for not letting them use it any way they wanted?