SamPatt
Knowing you can solve it doesn't mean you assume it'll get solved without effort.
It just means you're confident the problems will get solved. Pessimism stems from a perceived lack of control in my experience.
Oh dear.
How many years will you say this before conceding it's no longer luck?
It's incredible to see AI denialists still active in late 2026.
How can you possibly believe it's all hype? Is everyone just lying? Are we all paying $200 per month because... why?
Unlocking mastery of those domains would lead to incredible gains in all others. Whereas a fundamental advancement in many other domains doesn't spread as readily.
I presume you also know your own code has mistakes, too? You wouldn't refuse to even look at the code of a colleague who has ever made a coding mistake, would you?
Everything isn't getting worse constantly. The data is quite clearly the opposite. How old are you?
I was curious if AI agents could go beyond just making SVGs and create entire skits with them.
So I built a platform to do that. Results were meh until Astra, so I finally open sourced it last weekend.
If AI companies create better treatments they'll offer them to people who pay for them. So wealthier people will have better cancer treatments. If they can make them inexpensively, then a broader audience also gets treatment.
Eventually they lose IP rights and they become generics and the world gets better cancer treatments.
In all scenarios having them find better treatments benefits humans with cancer more than if they didn't.
I don't like trusting any organization, corporate or governmental, with control over people's lives, but it's obvious that we're not going to get cutting edge medical treatments without these organizations.
They're almost certainly a result of more competent models finding exploits.
If they profit immensely from curing cancer, good.
Which, comparatively, might be true. But just because someone else needs more help doesn't mean it wouldn't be welcome.
Parents, teachers, advisors, supervisors, they just let you figure it out because they know you can, and they need to focus on those who can't. I had a career coach once tell me I didn't need to worry about finding a job, smart people always find work.
If you've never needed to ask for help before, this can really cause problems when you finally do.
The TTS is Piper installed on the same VPS as Hermes.
Happy to answer questions or share code. I might publish the device app eventually. I hope your Pebble arrives soon, it's a great device.
It's hosted on a VPS, connected over Tailscale, and has a realtime TTS server (Piper).
The Pebble has built in transcription, so my app takes the transcript, hits the server endpoint with three possible paths:
1. Deterministic response
The server looks for certain triggers from the transcript like "Add task," "Complete task," "Set a timer," etc that will run a simple function on server and write / retrieve to a database, no LLM call needed. It then responds with the TTS output and the watch speaks. This path is nearly instant.
2. Fast response
If no trigger is found, then it hits a gpt5.6 Luna endpoint, which decides if it can answer the query itself, or if it needs to defer to the big brother model. If it can handle a query itself, it usually responds to simple questions in less than 8 seconds. It's also good about properly deferring, very close to 100% after a few weeks.
3. Deferred response
The VPS hosts a Hermes installation, and for more complicated tasks or for ongoing projects the Luna router sends it to the Hermes agent. This is typically quite slow, as you'd expect, but remarkably capable. I built the voice app to cache a few lines like "this will take some time" which will automatically trigger if the router indicates it's deferring, and then will respond with the full response from Hermes once it's finished (sometimes minutes later).
Pebble has a quiet mode, and my app will only display the text response if it's on, otherwise all responses are run through the TTS. Piper is so fast that this adds almost no time to the response.
In only a few weeks this has become the primary way I set up tasks, review and close them, set timers and reminders, log my weight, check in on the progress of projects I'm running on Hermes, and ask simple day to day AI questions.
Since Pebble is open source, AI tools are very good at building it, and it's trivially easy to set it up so that you can just ask the model to deploy it live. It's an awesome experience to tell it to change something, and two minutes later, that change is on your wrist.
Very fun project!
I learned about all of these projects on HN at one point or another.
But it's a decent enough proxy for the parts of human progress that I think are meaningful that it illustrates the point well.
That website is an excellent resource and you can find other more compelling charts there.
No, that's not the shape of the line. You can view it here:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-average-gdp-per-ca...
The hockey stick upturn in recent centuries needs explanation.
I'm pushing back so hard on this comparative definition of wealth (which I notice is the secondary definition you found behind large possessions) because I think it's silly to do that when we have an unbelievably dramatic increase in wealth in recent centuries which needs understanding first.
Hand-waving away human progress and forcing zero sum definitions of wealth feels unserious. You have terms for things like inequality, why not use those instead of distorting what wealth means?
No one made that claim.
By nearly any sane metric the world is wealthier. You can verify this on sites like Our World in Data.
We are healthier, have more leisure time, are less likely to die in natural disasters, etc.
It's willful ignorance to define wealth in a way that wouldn't show humanity as having gotten more wealthy. You're doing harm by overlooking massive gains we've made and understanding why we made them and instead redefining the common sense understanding of basic terms.
Oof.
I don't even know how to respond to this statement. Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe that 1) access to resources and technology are "basically constantly rising" and 2) why the relative difference in wealth today is more important than the (magical?) existence of a system were everyone has continually gotten more access to resources and technology.
You are aware that the default state of humanity hasn't been one of continually increasing access to resources and technology?
Wealth is obviously not zero sum. Humanity is far wealthier today than before the industrial revolution, and the trend is still towards increasing wealth.
"I should run my purchase decisions past an AI in the future."
Trying to establish the right to run models locally while we still can makes more sense than waiting to see if they do try, then organizing too late.
If production increased (dramatically) while temperatures increased in the past, could this trend continue?
I won't bother sharing the source because you'll find some reason to dismiss it I'm sure.
It's interesting you claim my comment is propaganda when I cite a scientific source and yet have nothing to say about the parent comment which claims we no longer need to worry about heating due to climate change. Which of those comments seems more propagandistic?
Nearly 10x more people die from the cold than from the heat.
"...9.43% of global deaths were attributable to non-optimal temperatures, with 8.52% from cold and 0.91% from heat."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
Discernment still exists.
Who is focused on destroying the world?
I don't think hardly any super villains exist. People might have a different assessment of what destroying the world means than you do.
It seems conceivable in social groups that having an honest accounting of how people are feeling (via emotions) available to the group might benefit the group in achieving their goals while not always benefiting the individual.