chipdale

Ed is in public relations. He did not amateurishly claim OpenAI and Anthropic would literally die. Like any PR savvy person, he qualified his predictions by making them conditional on whether OpenAI/Anthropic could raise more money, achieve a technical breakthrough, unlock new lucrative markets, etc.

So far, OpenAI and Anthropic have raised more money. You might even be able to argue they've achieved some breakthroughs and unlocked some markets.

Regarding his predictions: The jury is still out because Ed isn't actually making the falsifiable time-bounded predictions you think he's making. He's good at making his readers think he's putting his neck out, but he's really not.

When you remove all his rhetoric and veneer, his conditional predictions are actually somewhere between bearish and cautious.

It's mostly theatre.

I can understand why developers might not care for DSLs, especially when they force a choice between entirely different toolsets and toolchains.

However, I feel people often miss the real value of a good DSL: it's not about the syntax, but about providing hardened semantics that can bolster or guarantee desired qualities. Elm, for instance, provides value insofar as it makes producing runtime exceptions significantly more difficult.

Personally, I hope languages like Lean, which provides exceptional support for creating DSLs within the language, renew interest in semantically sound DSLs, especially if we insist on using LLMs.

Terry has always been curious & temperedly bullish on LLMs long before OpenAI gave him any money.

Quid pro quo or not, he got paid to say what he's already been saying for the last few years.

Why should they stop? Maybe they want to rehash the issue that's not being adequately addressed. Maybe it's not supposed to be funny.

How do you propose we address this issue? Instead of policing what people say, are you interested in sharing your or someone else ideas?

> There's zero benefit to society

Wouldn't it result in additional tax revenue while preventing Disney's movies from proliferating throughout society unimpeded?

In all honesty, I really think you should think this idea through. Compared to the status quo, where we get zero tax revenue from intellectual property, this system would guarantee an expiration based on commercial viability. It couldn't sustain forever because the scale would always accelerate at a rate faster than any economy could sustain it. But it would have this additional benefit in that the more some intellectual property becomes commercially sustainable, the more revenue society can collect.

How does that even begin to approach horrible when it's magnitudes more equitable than the status quo?

I know you're trying to be supportive, but did you actually download the app and try it?

Why do you love this idea? How would *you* use this app and what type of barcodes and QR codes would you imagine scanning?

While I might come off as a little incredulous, I'm trying to be open-minded because maybe you're seeing something that I'm not seeing.

Is this actually a problem?

I haven't come across it and I'm skeptical of articles like this are actually writing about something that's rarely happening while asking, "Why is everyone one speakerphone in public?"

I don't doubt it happens, and I can see this happening at higher rates in certain places, but honestly: What percentage of people are doing this are actually doing this in the worst places?

If you see this happening a lot, I'd love to know more. Where are you seeing it? What percentage of peopletalking on the phone do you estimate are doing it?