The morality issues about consumption climate impacts are not his alone, and are not unique by itself to his endeavor. Every company with an enterprise LLM agreement has a share, for instance.
Firstly, who TF would use that crap in the first place at all? Yeah, he did some crap he got paid for. So did the people who created the addictive algorithms for social and media or creators of the brainrot videos that infest kids' minds. Should we applaud them too?
The reality is if the thing can’t survive financially without being subsidised in the long run - it deserves to die.
There is no trend showing that these expensive things exist in the long run in this manner. - it’s pure speculation and for many: hopes and dreams.
Who knew it was that simple..?
It's a very simple question, the subthread you created based on reducing everything to "he did a thing" and calling the comment you didn't interact with at all "agonizing".
Why not rather leave it at "they wrote a comment"? What is so hard to understand about that, to use your words?
“He has /people/ write shitty code for features other /people/ think other people want, then has it reviewed by other /people/ in hopes of catching bugs that the first /people/ put there, then has some more /people/ try to find security bugs in the now /double-peopled/ code to make it /triple-peopled/ and at the end of the day, he spent a shitton of /money, the people/ probably emitted enough carbon to heat our planet by another degree, and has a feature nobody really asked for that might or might not work.”
Honestly sounds like a normal tech company to me. Just with much dumber “people” who are getting exponentially smarter, eventually never die, eventually never forget.
You have to skate to where the puck is going, not where it is.
They haven't gotten any smarter yet, let alone exponentially smarter. They are still the same dumb parrots that they were in the beginning.
> What's the point in all of this? What problems is this solving? Who's benefiting?
The economy doesn't work like how you think it does. Its not central planning. All the usages aren't detailed in a specification, submitted for approval to 100 agencies and then allowed to be used.
It shows lack of intellectual curiosity to not engage deeply with obviously profound technology and what the implications are. I find this exercise helpful.
Peter is predicting how LLMs will be used in the future when the prices go down. And they will definitely go down. I think his predictions are correct and we will definitely have something similar to OpenClaw.
I'm aware. That is in fact my central critique. The way it works is incredibly wasteful of our limited resources, as illustrated by this guy burning through fuel during a time of crisis for no perceptible gain.
> It shows lack of intellectual curiosity to not engage deeply with obviously profound technology and what the implications are.
The "obviously profound" is an assertion without proof.
The rest I agree with, we should engage with the implications of burning through energy to build features that bots think humans want, but nobody actually asked for, all while climate scientists are telling us we're heading for the apocalypse. It is intellectually incurious to just ignore the questions of why and at what cost, maybe even dangerously so.
You should try playing the game “workers and resources”; it’s a simcity like game, but based in the Soviet system of central planning, not capitalism. It will make you loathe the inefficiencies in central planning.
The appropriate comparison is command vs market. Capitalism is efficient in utilising the characteristics of humans to bring about expansion of markets.
I didn't know that studying photocopiers is suddenly linked to "intellectual curiosity". Being a photocopier maintenance guy was always considered boring.
What you put on top of the machine was intellectually interesting.
like one bot finding similar issues and PRs, the another bot closing issues for "lack of activity", meanwhile people are reacting and pleading to speak to a real human?
Congrats builders of the future, you've turned software development into automated voice systems.
He has agents write shitty code for features other agents think other people want, then has it reviewed by other agents in hopes of catching bugs that the first agent put there, then has some more agents try to find security bugs in the now double-agented code to make it triple-agented and at the end of the day, he spent a shitton of tokens, probably emitted enough carbon to heat our planet by another degree, and has a feature nobody really asked for that might or might not work.
He then has the sense of humor to call this grotesque process "incredibly lean".
What's the point in all of this? What problems is this solving? Who's benefiting?
[0] https://xcancel.com/steipete/status/2055405041843052792