wavemode

The Doorman Fallacy is real but is poorly named. Doormen weren't replaced by automatic doors, they were replaced by simply not having a doorman. People can open doors themselves - doormen have always been a luxury for the most part.

Law enforcement usually are interested in recovering stolen goods, when you have evidence of where the goods are via GPS. Or eyewitness or video evidence of who has them.

Where people often get disappointed is when all the evidence they have is "my [object] is gone!" and they expect the PD to send out a full forensic team.

There are plenty of GPS trackers which can be used for anti-theft purposes. AirTag isn't designed for that, largely because Apple doesn't want the bad PR.

Streisand effect... why would you write an article about a product you don't want people to know about? What end result would you foresee in doing that, logically?

well, let's say that there are 100 people in your class in dental school. the 50 worst of them ultimately decide that they aren't cut out for it and drop out. you, who were previously in the top half ranked 26th, now graduate in the bottom half.

Having a well-defined rubric is better than having a minimum word count or page count. If they can meet all the rubric's requirements in 3 sentences then so be it.

There's an old saying, "if it works it's not AI". We could make a similar statement: "if it works, it's not robotics". That is, once a robot becomes reliable and efficient enough for everyday use, we no longer consider it a robot we just consider it a machine or tool.

Wait let me get this straight. A man is killed in a road rage shooting. His family shows up to sentencing with an AI video of the victim asking for leniency for the shooter. The judge says he loved the video, then gives out the max sentence anyway. Then a court of a appeals vacates the sentence on the grounds that the judge was biased by the video. Huh? Every single one these statements seems extremely illogical.

I'm not sure I've ever heard of poor visual acuity (that can be corrected with lenses) being referred to as "visual impairment".

Really, acuity is a spectrum and almost nobody has perfect vision.

I would argue that Joel and Paul's blogs are not education, they are opinion pieces. The fact that many of these opinions have become widely accepted over time doesn't change the format, which is that they are argumentative writing rather than purely informative (as you'd find in a textbook or scientific paper).

People say this exact thing every single time a new frontier model comes out.

> There is nothing that, in principle, makes MTG different from poker or bridge

There is - metagame. There is no universal optimal strategy in a trading card game, because what is optimal depends on what decks and strategies other people are playing.

I'm sure you could train a neural network to play a specific deck within a specific metagame of a specific card game, but you would probably have to keep re-training it when there are new decks/combos/releases/rotations/banlists/metagame shifts.

yep, he has stated he placed every block one by one

Appealing to lack-of-authority without actually explaining in what way his argument is wrong is significantly worse.

> sha1 is broken in 10 years. Suddenly everyone has to switch all at once on the same day because it is a critical security issue

If you read the OP article, the entire point he's making is that this would never happen, because a hash algorithm being "broken" doesn't matter in practice, because true supply chain security has nothing to do with file hashes.

AWS as a whole is sold to businesspeople, sure, but the individual AWS products are definitely being sold to engineers. S3 and EC2 don't need to have layperson-friendly names, since laypeople don't understand what they are or why one would or wouldn't use them - those are CTO/tech lead decisions.

You would have a point if it were called "america.com". But ".gov" is reserved for the US government, so it would be redundant for such domains to specify "USA" in their name.

Though I do wish it were called chat.gov or america-ai.gov or something else actually descriptive of what it is

Funny. Whereas if you ask it "What happened at the Capitol on February 24, 2026?", it will happily tell you that the State of the Union address was delivered.

> it's not factually correct to say statutes of limitations always prevent a historical wrong from being addressed

Nobody has made this claim.

I suspect that the performance advantage of allowing the CPU to cache-prefetch many pointers at once (vs. having to follow a pointer to get the next pointer, in the case of the linked list) still makes a vector of pointers better than a linked list for sequential traversal.

> red tape, bureaucracy, rent seeking, status quo. AI will see through these human constructs.

Why would an LLM care about eliminating any of these things? When you say "red tape" and "bureaucracy" you are, in that very statement, applying emotional labels to what are actually just systems working as designed. There are the rules, so we follow them. LLM decision-makers will happily enforce and perpetuate bureaucracy and red-tape. If the rent-seeking is legal behavior then they will fully protect a big corporation's right to engage in it, they don't care about the feelings of the little guy. If a similar situation was decided a certain way in the past, then yeah let's decide it the same way now and maintain the status quo; LLMs very often think that way, they don't care about human ideals like "change" or "progress".

Why wouldn't that person just go start their company in a country that isn't going to yank away their ownership?

I have been hearing people say "[latest model] is AGI already, organizations just aren't leveraging it yet" all the way since GPT 4o. And people will probably continue making this claim every time a new frontier model comes out.

> (Some have already landed.)

Do you have links to some of these?

You can set up automation and/or configuration such that changes to the docs folder don't require code review.

That explanation doesn't make sense. If the point is anonymity, why not just AI generate the students entirely? They AI-generated the girl on the right in her entirety, so capability clearly isn't the problem. And the guy in the middle is still very much recognizable.

Personally, I don't know if AI will be a net-positive or net-negative for mankind, but if it's negative it's overwhelmingly likely that it will be due to environmental and/or energy usage concerns. That is, we ought to limit the power consumption and force companies to work more efficiently and sustainably, rather than limiting the research itself.

Arguments as old as time that a new form of automation will put people out of jobs are just not compelling to me, I'm sorry. I also don't believe it's likely that LLMs will ever be ASI, nor ever evil and sentient.

But what if (as the commenter you're responding to stated) someone believes that AI will have a positive effect on humanity? Is it morally wrong for them to disagree with your view?

They're not challenging that at all. The time limit makes it a game rather than an experiment. "You can't tell it's AI if you don't have enough time to examine the details" is not exactly a compelling claim...

When I was doing arbitrage and bonus farming, the process often involved wagering both sides of a bet on different sportsbooks. Result being that my DraftKings account was eventually down thousands of dollars over its lifetime.

So of course... they emailed me offering access to a VIP bonus program! To get in I just needed to keep betting as much as possible. Such nice people.