We picked democracy because it is very difficult for a citizen to move to a different country/start their own if they are unhappy. Democracy is a fix for that power imbalance.
By contrast its relatively easy to quit and start a new company if you feel like it. That is the control for a company.
You're right. It's in their power to kneecap the businesses they sit on Twitter and whine about. Twitter, incidentally, being another one of those businesses.
OTOH US manufacturing employment declined by ~30% in less than a decade starting in 2000 and the country is still reeling from the fallout. I suspect it will be several decades still until the social problems caused by that economic shift are resolved, if they ever are.
In the UK, many families who were plunged into poverty during the 1980s have yet to recover.
So if history is any guide, I don't think it's a sure thing at all that everyone will have time to adjust.
Wow, the way this site scrolls and pollutes the browser history is pretty terrible! I gave up trying to go back and just closed it and started a new tab
Interesting. I downloaded some PDFs for the adjustment of status forms recently and most of them were editable but only partially - the conditional fields couldn't be edited it seemed.
I think your argument is you can't create good architecture without writing code. I sort of agree. You can't be a good software architect without knowing how to code, and you can be a good architect of a specific code base without being familiar with the code.
But I don't think you expect an architect to have written all the code, right? I don't even think you expect an architect to have read all the code.
The whole point of being a good architect is understanding the abstractions so that we can focus on the overall system without necessarily knowing all the details. I don't need to know the FFT math behind JPEG to integrate an image library.
So there's no real change in opinion. Architects were never expected write or even understand every line of code.
Yes there were. There were unscientific claims that the data was used to change the mind of voters in a complete magical and impossible way. Which later was proven entirely false.
Did you miss the entire event? Or are you so busy trying to be swarmy that you can’t remember it?
I think you got downvoted unfairly because I really think you're sincere. My brain heard your comment in the voice of Nightcrawler from X-Men—and as the descendant of German Catholics, he's become one of my favorites.
We had one of the most damaging lab leaks in history with COVID and the wuhan lab. And we couldn't even get the facts straight.
I think this is largely a similar thing. The labs should be running at certain levels of containment given the vitality/risk of the organism under study. Hopefully they get there for all our sakes.
But the revealed preference of society at this point is the damage is worth the benefits both in wuhan and with AI. Unfortunately with some of these "substances" it could eventually prove lethal.
If you over simplify everything then everything is the same. You have to have nuance. So don't just argue for the sake of arguing. Take that same passion to deeply understand these systems. Take that same passion to try to understand yourself and those around you
No but being rich does mean one can hire a lot of intelligent people to figure it out for them. A LOT.
The thing is, if someone figures out something against aging, you can bet it will be made incredibly expensive. After all, the planet will have a massive problem if everyone starts using it. Basically every problem we have on this world will increase, from global warming to housing, energy, pollution, traffic.
So it will be limited to the few and in our society that means the most wealthy (not that I agree with that but it is what it is).
So they would probably keep it secret and expensive, but they'd also be very motivated to invest in it because it would be insanely profitable. And they would benefit personally by living longer obviously. I'm sure those people with hundreds of billions in the bank think about these things.
I'm pretty sure someone like Elon Musk would eventually invest in that. Right now he's probably a bit too young to worry about ageing. But he's someone who believes in technology shaping the future of humanity.
You’d think that, I thought that… but then I realized I’m just kidding myself thinking its output makes sense. It doesn’t. It doesn’t. Sometimes it might as well just speak tongues.
In other words, it ain’t you. It’s the model. It’s just genuinely bad.
Then you switch to ChatGPTs lineup and realize how things can actually be better. It took about a week to really get the feel for how to use their models… then I basically switched. I’ll check in every now and then when they actually make a deal about how opus “now makes sense”.
But honestly I’m half convinced Anthropic actually prefers the output of opus 5. I dunno why, but how else could you explain how such a thing got shipped? I mean somebody in the pipeline had to say “dude this model doesn’t make sense, you think we should fix it?” Right? Like it’s a pretty massive drop in quality for such a major brand in this space, you know? How did it make it out the door?!?
There absolutely is a market - anti-AI sentiment among creatives isn't going away. Like any other "purity" branding, it's a real commitment and severely limits your future ability to pivot.
I don't know of anyone in the VC or traditional incubator communities who has an appetite for this. And the groups who are an ideological fit don't have the funds to be worth pursuing.
It's a niche. Like most niches, there's the opportunity to prosper, but yeah - bootstrapping (or angel-bootstrapping if you're lucky and have a personal connection) is pretty much the only way to go here.
I’m using ENABLE (Enhanced North American Benchmark Lexicon) with a lot of added short Scrabble-legal words