10111001
> It is going to be incredibly difficult to bill outrageous amounts for armies of consultant to implement or customise the product when agents can do the same for much less, or at-least a 5-10x reduction in headcount for similar complexity of changeset.
> If anyone is in the industry, please feel free to chime in as to what you are seeing on the ground.
I do not deal with ERPs, but my understanding is that one of their big selling points has to do with financial audit compliance. They're big complex, hulking things, but battle-tested an trusted. If you use one, your auditor can just check off the box, but if you use custom software, then the auditor has to audit that too (in order to make sure you get really complex things like computing tax correctly in each jurisdiction correctly).
Lol, it's 2026: it'll just go to some other billionaire. Probably Marc Benioff. I heard he likes owning Hawaii.
> Now I think I kind of have an answer. Maybe the level of diagnostic refers to the LLM effort level....
The real answer is that it was gibberish. IIRC, the writers would insert "[tech]" in the scripts, to be later fleshed out into technobabble.
What you say is ret-con at best. A more realistic contemporary interpretation of the "level 3 diagnostic" technobabble, would have been a particular pre-programmed diagnostic procedure (like "run the POST memory checks" on a PC).
But it's pretty clear you can chuck "human pursuits" in the garbage, in favor of what really matters: intensification of the market system and wealth accumulation for its own sake.
> In the pursuit of knowledge, what ultimately drives people is what they themselves can understand, and the meaning these understanding provides, both based on their own experience and people whose opinions they value.
It's pretty clear the message we're getting is "what [people] themselves can understand, and the meaning these understanding provides" doesn't matter, and if you care about that you're an sentimental piece of garbage.
The only social contract the vastly wealthy will remember is that the plebs must respect their private property rights as a divine right, in return they'll give the plebs the opportunity to work...sometimes.
You mean data centers. Can't ever have enough of those!
Because they're all about what's best for them.
Not necessarily. It's the name for the last thing(s) before the new thing, but you can't shut it down because people are using it and/or the new thing actually isn't so great.
Eh. I disagree. It really depends on the company, the why, and what's done with it afterwards.
If the other party nationalized the big frontier labs or AI data center operators, with the rationale that AI is just too disruptive to privatize the gains and/or the companies are acting recklessly, I wouldn't consider it "authoritarian despotism," and I don't think many others would either: those companies are unpopular across the political spectrum.
Another way to restate my comment is: cryptocurrency is technically interesting but the tradeoffs it made to focus on certain edge cases mean that for pretty much every use-case, the preexisting technologies are superior and/or cryptocurrency is practically unworkable.
> ...
> I'm hoping someone invents a new iteration that's better.
It "solved" inflation by being deflationary (and then you have the massive volatility layered on top of that).
I think it's probably impossible to have a stable currency without some kind of dynamic governance, like a central bank.
IMHO, cryptocurrency is technically interesting but for pretty much every use-case, the preexisting technologies are superior and/or cryptocurrency is practically unworkable.
It's not that simple. For instance: a prison sentence is "authoritarian despotism" from the perspective of a murderer subject to it (or his apologists).
> That will make a lot of businesses focus on success here and not somewhere else.
You have a weird definition of theft. We're talking about nationalizing them instead of handing their shareholders a bunch of free money to bail them out. Not getting free money is theft now?
But, more broadly: there's more to the social contract than private property rights. And it's really hard to bring myself to care too much about the private property rights of entities who have shown themselves to not be very respectful of that contract.
You linked an article about a single Israeli criminal getting extradited to stand trial for a crime.
Do you not understand the distinction between "the Israelis" (often used as a shorthand for its government) and "an Israeli"?
IIRC, the North Korean government itself has programs to steal cryptocurrency to fund its government.
The Israelis don't have any problem acquiring hard currency. North Korea does, and has an established MO of stealing crypto and running online moneymaking scams like ransomware.
Don't forget to add "don't make mistakes!"
Of course: it's long been a developed country and it's densely populated.
I think you're misunderstanding that anxiety. I think this is what's going on:
1. For a lot of people, using technical skills like coding is the part of the job they enjoyed.
2. Closely related to the above point: for a lot of people, technical skills was the part they were good at.
> Technical skills aren't worth shit and never were, except as far as they enable you to engage with other people in ways you and they find valuable. This used to be really far! It made it easy to believe that the technical skills on their own were what was valuable.
> But the engagement was always the valuable thing, generating technical insight was a necessary prerequisite for it. Now anyone with a $20 claude sub can generate technical insight into niche problems, so what's left is everything else. Everything of value.
3. More broadly: if "they" don't find the "technical skills" you provided valuable anymore, why do they need to keep you around? Why not cut your 10-person team down to 3 people (the manager, architect, and technical lead) and fire you and the other 6? Not everyone can re-invent themselves as a product person, even if they had the skills. It's a game of musical chairs.
The problem with LLM voice is that it sends the signal that it's a likely waste of effort to try to figure out if there's any "technical insight" there, because more often than not, there isn't.
Maybe it's not fair that you're paying the price for others using LLMs to abuse their readers, but it's the reality that you have to deal with. It's also not fair to expect readers to wade through all that abusive LLM prose in order to find your (assumed) non-abusive post.
Once LLM writing becomes indistinguishable from human writing, it will be really sad. There will just be a collapse of human engagement, and you might as well just talk to your machine because then at least you know what you're getting and aren't being deceived.
1. The liars: people cynically playing up fears of "losing democracy" as a political tactic to support some other political programs. I think this is especially obvious from candidates, activists, political operatives, etc. -- people sophisticated enough and engaged enough to know and think about what they're doing in a serious way.
2. The un-serious people: those you describe. Basically irrational people who believe a jumble of things without exercising the ability to prioritize or disengage the contradictions.
I don't think the boundaries between these phenomena are hard ones (e.g. you can often push un-serious people into liar territory by challenging them to prioritize).
There will have to be institutional adaptation to this, but it will be painful and I think the end-result will be worse that what we had pre-LLM. Things will be much more closed, inaccessible, and based on who you know. The openness of the last ~30 years will end.
There's a very easy method to tell if someone making that claim is a liar: ask "what major ideological compromise are they making to save democracy?" if the answer is "none" or close to it, they're full of shit.
'Cause if fascism is really our doorstep, you'd think they'd be gunning for the broadest, most indefatigable anti-fascist coalition possible; instead of the narrowest, most pure one they think they can get away with.
I'd like to know the process by which you evolve from a single-orifice lung system to a dual-orifice lung system in something as complicated as a reptile.
They weren't sauropod gigantic, but there were these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae:
> Phorusrhacids ranged widely in size, with the smallest members like Psilopterus measuring 1 meter (3.3 ft) tall whereas giants like Devincenzia possibly reached 3 meters (9.8 ft) tall.
While scrounging for food from the trash, since we'll all be unemployed and poor.
And what's even worse than that is when they don't know what they're talking about, and launder their ignorance through an LLM. Then you get vapor laundered to look like a thoughtful and considered response.
> ...
> 3. But bigger takeway was that due to relative uselessnes (if not downright hostility) of SO I started just breaking down the problem and solving on my own, talk to colleagues, or look for solutions for broken down problems and then I think I used to come across SO in months and that too most of the time when a colleague will refer to something.
Yeah, SO's culture meant that it was always my absolute last resort to ask a question there. And whenever I did I had to be super-defensive from the get go. It was either people trying their hardest to close it, or "redefine" a hard question into an easier one they could answer (e.g. ignore the constraints that were key to my question).
I understand a lot of that came from their desire to create a curated list of questions, but in retrospect they took the wrong approach. They should have let people ask and answer questions freely, even dups. Instead of hunting for dups to close, they should have had their moderators link them together and author the "canonical question" from them.