cheesecompiler

Yikes, arbitrary terminal access?

What are the odds normie users will find a use something even tech users don’t?

Seems needlessly elaborate to me. A lot of this is a one shot prompt.

iMac G4, the wildly ahead of its time, impossible to fix 2-level motherboard Mac.

a healthy dollop of anthropomorphism and performative reverence

This is supported by the craze around moltbook, and the eventual cooling around it as it became clear they're just regurgitating prose

Respectfully, it seems like the weapon of choice for many a government.

Tech guy discovers conversations with humans.

did for me even on low non thinking effort

This suggests that developers are the primary user base affecting valuation, not the average user, doesn't it? I don't know anyone among mortals who uses Claude. The spike does correlate with the exodus from OpenAI earlier in the year though.

I hear "Substrate" a LOT.

And to me it seems like you're justifying a lack of oversight and dangers of this technology for what purpose exactly? Why are you defending a corporation?

Does he though?

No because gentrification is a side effect of private property, not insufficient technology.

i'll never forget Nothing Real / Apple Shake

"join to see"??? gtfo

> the AI pessimism is hard to understand in this context

This is a burden of proof inversion: historically new technology has not resulted in optimistic outcomes. Quality of life improvements were side effects of capital accruing. AI optimism is the naïve option that requires justification.

There seem to be multiple mechanisms compensating for imperfect, lossy memory. "Dreaming" is another band-aid on inability to reliably store memory without loss of precision. How lossy is this pruning process?

It's one thing to give Claude a narrow task with clear parameters, and another to watch errors or incorrect assumptions snowball as you have a more complex conversation or open-ended task.

> a yesman can say yes by saying no

What a great way to summarize LLM behaviour in 2026

> It's why for example occupy wallstreet was such a laughable failure.

This claim is enormous. I would instead argue that the movement lacked cohesiveness because it basically complained about too large a set of (correctly identified as interconnected) issues and lost momentum because the surface was too large.

That said, I agree w your point about a face being important. Even in software, where tech can speak for itself, we see this heavily: Torvalds, Matsumoto, van Rossum, Jobs,

The parent comment reads as an LLM to me as well.

Rebuttal: we are yet to see this actually materialize beyond the theoretical fantasy. We have seen this with computers and internet already: the supposedly democratic technology consolidated in a few platform monopolies.

Housing prices are not binary: they have skyrocket in every major city and city-adjacent suburb. The middle class has consistently declined since the 70s.

Fungibility means anything can be framed as economic value. Prisoner labour is also unlocking economic value, as is child labour.

Also who are these non-theoretical people who in this economy can afford to sit around but are suddenly economically motivated by gig economy offerings?

Inability to do something != needing to take advantage of the situation.

This trick is called a red herring fallacy.

Labour getting ever-granular in the age of micro-loans and RentAHuman.

> "Dashers have a new way to earn on their own terms"

The classic meaning inversion of precariousness and lack of benefits as a virtue.

Does the amount listed change the underlying point?