gazebo2

Is passively interacting with AI against your will really counted in the "people using AI" metric for the sake of this discussion?

>The market for Claude Code is much bigger than professional software devs. It's really anyone who uses a computer.

I'm sorry and I'm sure you are being honest in knowing non-tech people using it, but this is on the whole false. The vast majority of people not only have no interest in "personal software" or using Claude for programming, but the slice of the population that does actively interact with AI is using free chatbots as a nu-Google. Most tech people don't even want the "personal software" thing, I don't know why this line is being pushed as if your grandma is going to make her own calorie counter app one day.

I think there's definitely some quantization or nerfing happening post-release -- I definitely noticed that with Gemini Flash 3.7, it was super fast and accurate at the start and a few weeks later seemed to run in circles and overthink even a "what are you doing" message, all while doing almost identical work. I find it weird that we're so far into the LLM era and the post-launch degradation is still something of a conspiracy theory.

It's crazy to think someone with that complex of a job needs to be babysat

Noise and increased electricity costs. I feel like the people balking at anti-datacenter rhetoric are just intentionally missing the most obvious and directly impacting complaints from residents.

I similarly have a weird affinity for Gemini that I can't really articulate. I used Gemini's free chat and found it great for exploring technical topics (and random one-off general walking-around-questions) and appreciated its speed, tone and accuracy. I spent a month playing with Gemini CLI / Antigravity and found it also an effective coding agent, at least for my workflow (entirely in the loop development and review). I also was really surprised that I could just paste it images of a project I was working on and have it immediately understand what it was looking at -- which I've come to learn is considered a unique strong point for Gemini. I've been playing with GPT5.6 for about a month and it's definitely powerful but I honestly think I'll go back to Gemini. There's something kind of charming about working with an AI that not only is particularly good at web search and information gathering, but also one that doesn't feel like some superhuman overengineering freak when it comes to code.

It was always possible to modify images to produce inappropriate or insensitive content, but plugging a turbocharged state of the art image generator with virtually no guardrails into every Twitter reply and then failing to address the issue long after it was obviously being used for CSAM or deepfakes of real people against their will.. well that's worse

Took me a sec to realize you weren't quoting the guy from Tool lol

Do we really believe marketing copy from Anthropic re: RSI considering their recent model releases seem to be markedly regressing in real world performance vs. past models?

There are very little (read: zero) references to politics in my codebase so I don't really care if the free Chinese frontier model throws an error when I ask about Tiananmen Square. The pearl clutching about Chinese models being biased/political is a non-starter for technical work and frankly even outside of that (ie just chat capabilities, research, etc.) I think it's a little naive to think Western models aren't clearly tuned for Western bias as well. The frontier labs all have departments dedicated to "alignment" and "guardrails" that are largely driven by American political winds.

These models were trained on massive scale copyright infringement, I really don't think they're drawing the line at training on the requests you send them

You caught me, I was too on the nose using the classic Russian disinformation tactic of saying mass surveillance is bad

I think in general people are a bit distrusting of a tech firm headed by billionaires with deep political ties that sells AI driven surveillance state technology to governments

Are we really saying that Anthropic claiming AI would take over industries was some benevolent ethical move rather than marketing their product as a cheap replacement for human labor that works in any industry? Wouldn't the ethical thing, if they were actually concerned about labor displacement, be to shut down the lab and work to disrupt and disable other labs instead?

Probably meaning C-Suite thought productivity was up because of AI, either because A) metrics showed high AI usage or more commits/LOC or B) we're mandating AI usage, why wouldn't it increase?

Pretty massive difference between "being employed" and "being employed with a decent wage". Yeah, there's plenty of low-wage service industry or gig economy work available to take you out of the unemployment statistic -- there's a lot less employment available that enables you to live a decent lifestyle (i.e. live somewhere without 4 roommates or raise a family)

Maybe people shouldn't be buying homes for the purpose of renting them then?

I'm not interested in explaining to you something immediately evident that you clearly disagree with. If you don't feel that trillion dollar companies training commercial products on the free labor of human writers/artists/engineers/etc. without their consent or compensation isn't "stealing" you're welcome to that opinion, but I believe that's what the GP was implying.

It's ironic to proclaim fear of a risk and then dedicate your life to actualizing the risk

>economy-wide automation would make the US wealthy beyond imagination

Somehow I doubt the average American would be partaking in this unimaginable wealth

Any text, code, image, video or audio they/anybody has ever uploaded to the public internet? Is this a real question?

>Yeah, but measuring things that are poorly understood (to wit: community environmental factors on health outcomes) is part of the scientific process.

Is this really poorly understood? I think that's (partially) their point. I think we all pretty well understand that income correlates with health and that poorer people will tend to live in less healthy environments.

>You say this based on what?

I say it based on the fact that I experience consciousness and therefore know it is a phenomenon wholly separate from the outward effect I have on the world via speech or any other physical action.

>It assumes that there's some parallel realm of spirit that the brain is peculiarly able to tap into, but which computer programs that function in very similar ways to the brain don't tap into.

Ruling this out completely implies that modern science has a total and complete understanding of consciousness and the universe in its entirety, which it does not. I don't think it's unreasonable to leave open the possibility that there is an unexplained phenomenon that explains the conscious experience which is still bounded by the laws of physics.

>.. the difference between thinking and an extremely good simulacrum of thought is meaningless. They become the same thing.

Do they? To me it seems like you equate the process with the result, like saying if I gave you a gift, it doesn't matter whether I bought it or made it by hand, in either case I "made" it because the end result is the same. There is a conscious experience that (hopefully) all humans experience and can testify to, the question is whether or not an LLM predicting tokens based on a giant vector map is experiencing the same thing, which I'd say is obviously not happening. My point about chatbots is about exactly this -- 10 years ago even you would have laughed at somebody that said a hand-rolled chatbot was conscious/thinking, but because the output has improved, now suddenly it's all the same, and your brain is a computer, and Claude has feelings, blah blah.

>It's hard to argue you'll still be reading code a year from now

groan

This sort of tech-centric distillation of visceral human experience into simple analogies is so grating. We can simultaneously acknowledge that consciousness is not well defined and not "testable" with certainty while also acknowledging that there is something different between the conscious experience we are all aware of as humans, and instructions executing on a chip. The only thing that has changed in the discourse about AI and consciousness vs. "is my home desktop conscious in 2004" is the quality of the simulacrum that LLMs produce vs. pre-ML chatbots.

I mean, "AI Mode" is the default result when you Google something, so of course they're seeing high usage. Driving an increase in total queries is probably because instead of just Googling something and getting the right results like it was 10~ years ago, now you have to interrogate a chatbot or try multiple queries. I would think higher total queries is more an indicator that your search function isn't effective.

Wealth is also money actually -- people don't contribute farms to politicians campaigns

But that state action is the direct result of wealth's influence over the state and how it operates

Unrelated to the actual editor but this is one of the best looking and most responsive websites I've ever used

oh god are we really doing this? just ignore the accelerated decline of virtually the entire world because we have medicine and Netflix?