Supermancho
There's countless ways compensate for this gap, some of which are regulatory, others merely obvious (like the lack of a multi-trillion AI bubble in the future), the assumption that technological progress continues as modern levels (ie "same quality of life") with the changes that may entail. Ofc, the demographic shift (as you mentioned) changes what "quality of life" even means, making it even less deterministic.
> Unless we hit 3%+ GDP growth, us workers are probably going to see declines in quality of life (and we're probably not going to get those levels of growth)
The USA won't but Besset will claim that it did.
This is FUD. It isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.
At the very least, using AI to audit your code is responsible use. The testing is the same as it ever was. If there was a chronic problem with shipped AI assisted code, it would be a popular talking point.
> If quality isn't controlled properly, it eventually shows up as negative in the top line.
This an idealistic pillar of capitalism that has been falsified across time. Depending on what someone means by "controlled properly", I don't think this wasn't been true before AI and I don't think it's demonstrated post-AI. Momentum (notably capture) keeps the software markets resistant to quality defects.
Moving the goalpost is not compelling.
> They bailed out Intel and the stock recovered.
This is not demonstrated. What did the Trump admin "figure out"? Socializing private losses (especially if it's only temporary), is another problem, not a solution.
Modeling that the GDP goes up because people are buying bitcoin would be the equivalent of the AI investment effect. A key difference being that the AI companies are currently included in the calculation and bitcoin is not. I don't mean to imply that the AI companies are transparently ponzi schemes, but they are all massively overvalued. The net GDP effect should be very very small if not negative, while the valuations are being used to justify a growing GDP that would otherwise have obviously fallen.
A real GDP decline of over 10% year over year for more than 1 year is the biggest signal. Ofc, I noticed the US Federal Government has been cooking the books since at least H. W. Bush (maybe longer) by including tech stock potential gains as part of GDP. Take out tech stocks, the US economy looks like it will to historians.
Even in the modern day, an economic depression is associated with massive unemployment, deflation, reductions in the trifecta of industrial output + consumer spending + international trade, with the final kicker being reduced credit availability. Currently, interest rates are relatively high (historically middling) which has effectively restricted consumer credit, while the national credit rating has fallen.
This is incorrect. Treating solar panels like batteries for specific appliances (or integrated like the panel on a Solocam S220), is not the use case nor is this a discussion about off-grid or microhomes.
I would suggest not making broad statements about what can and can't be taxed in the future.
When you're connecting solar to a municipal grid (which is what most homes are connected to), it could theoretically be taxed or even subjected to a tariff. The "added" power (often excess) is monitored for billing credits/payout/other, among other reasons like grid integrity.
Without judgement, I think this illustrates a fundamental objection the anti-AI crowd raises.
The example prompt requires no understanding of what's happening, before suggesting action. Where I work, process requires that a PR review for a solution, has to have a corresponding explanation of why, or it's marked needs work
> I have a similar thought about "there's no reason for software to be slow" BTW; in many cases, if you use AI to speed up some flow, you will add a bunch of messy code that will be overfit for the use case you tested on and will neither generalize, perf-wise, for all the use cases you should care about, nor will be maintainable upon future changes.
LLMs have hardened hundreds of apps where I work.
Maybe it's a language-specific thing. Most of the time, in Java, LLMs take into consideration tradeoffs (especially if they are part of the initial prompt) and actively explains them. It generally won't make messy workarounds, without a lot of extra prompting forcing it to do so.
Ofc, if you have:
- Functional tests - you'll be able to see it in the execution times of specific APIs
- Stress testing - performance profiling is the most important output artifact
I don't consider this voting. After a regime has already taken power (during which time voting is suspended), there is often (not always) allowed performative ritual as a cultural placebo. Regulated physical acts are not the same as suffrage.
On what basis does someone make this claim? Authoritarianism is a broad stroke. Most of the time, they eliminate voting, not make it compulsory.
Classically, an authoritarian power only care about voting to initially take hold of power. Every attempt to coerce voting (one way or the other) after that is performative, not instrumental.
There is no underpopulation hysteria. However, the math around demographics is settled.
As responsibilities become increasingly important (more financial import), their work is divided into specialized slices for optimization, redundancy, and bus factor. The number of combinations of people that might be necessary to answer questions or provide guidance in decisioning expands exponentially (small slope, correlating to recruitment). If something in a meeting is considered missed, unsaid, or backtracked, the event is memorialized and pushes for more meeting with a larger audience. The people in large meetings self-select into smaller meetings around their specific vertical interests, in order to align with the interpreted decisions of the larger meetings.
Meeting bloat is the result of a conflux of human behavior, lossy communication, optimized behavior and competing interests. If it was a simple single reason, humans would have solved it long ago.
The question was about the average lifespan of a democracy (or any derivation, like a republic).
This is a variation of talking past the subject. eg https://www.instagram.com/p/DY2DRKDhqaa
> Sounds like total bullshit.
You're right. It more like an avg of 118 years (median 73), not 200, depending on what you mean by "greatest" ofc. The Ancient Romans, US, and Dutch pulling that average up and 1/3 of historically modern continuing democracies having a short lifespan being founded around WW2, pulling it down.
The Roman Empire was not stable for an uninterrupted period of time. It's conceptually called a single state for simplicity, because such a large period of time and area of land naturally had instability (less than current Europe, granted). The Roman Empire democratic government lasted about 487 years before falling into autocratic rule.
> There does not exist a set of rules that make a completely safe and useful robot.
That was not demonstrated. We have safe and useful robots, for some values of 'safe' and 'useful', today. Again, most of the robots in the stories are not thrown (or planned to be thrown) in the metaphorical trash heap.
Don't always work in all scenarios, was the takeaway.
There's a metric ton of salt to be taken with the mental concepts and possible interpretations of such "laws".
Largely, they do work in the stories, despite the inherent ambiguity.
Humans have cognitive limits. Humans hold a specific slice of all knowledge at a time and necessarily limits what correlations can be leveraged. This is similar to "context windows" in modern AI. Human minds are wildly variable in efficiency. AI is has constant inefficiency, largely controlled by the speed of light, physical RAM, and processing power, with superior (no cost) "thought" context switching. The AI also has superior accuracy without the need for "concentration" because the AI is processing on a Turing machine with the limited operations that it's superior at in terms of time and energy - eg find an element in a list of 1 million elements.
9 out of 10 I ask say it's about reliable delivery (not necessarily next day). Most people order things because they need them and have read the reviews, not because they are speculating at something they may need or are ok with getting something else. Clothing being a notable exception, unpredictably sized and variable quality, which nobody is happy about.
ie Blizzard's CWA - it's scary to think about for many workers, so most people didn't bother to look up the details.
> There was one year I received 3 promotions at Travelocity and nearly doubled my compensation. I was hired as a web designer and after 3 months was involuntarily reassigned to a developer role and told to “figure it out”.
This is obviously an aberration where you are doing exactly what you claimed the gp did.
Moving jobs is the single best way to get a raise and has been for decades. Leveraging the experience at a company (which is relatively static) for a higher wage at another where that new and different experience has more value.
Notably, how company leadership changes are less likely to be from internal candidates than a transplant from another company.
This is the paragraph in the entirety. While previous sections referred to “the Elons and Sams of the world”, this section that was specifically called out:
> The connection made to climate change in the latter part of the article is new to me, and would be interesting if true. However, I wish the author would cite supporting evidence for their conclusions.
Does not refer to them explicitly (many of the very same), although it could be believed that the second clause of the first sentence refers to Sam, et al. Elon doesn't fit as he has no fiduciary duty nor has he called for slowdown, nor are there "many" in this demographic, which is a sign that this is more stream of thought. I believe the narrative only fits if you consider this to be a tangent about political sociopaths that was muddled by a very human leading thought intruding (from previous paragraphs), on an otherwise straightforward observation.
It makes no sense in the context of billionaires, as they were not generally driving "us" toward climate destruction prior to the AI boom.