vanviegen

> I don't see how this is "irrational" for me to do

And..

> because I'm doing it based on vibes, not based on stock fundamental analysis.

So it seems that you do agree that you're not acting rationally, but you're okay with that as its contained.

The thing is: if enough people do what you're planning to do, the market is basically broken. Early investors will be getting back healthy returns, based on making ludicrous investments in a very risky business that still hasn't been validated at all. Basically a Ponzi scheme.

With more data, analysts might be able to raise more severe warning flags, that might deter people like you from investing.

Or Anthropic might actually take over the entire economy, and holding its stock might be the only worthwhile economic activity left for us, mere humans. :-)

> Wake me up when someone can actually build a computer from scratch with EU-made parts.

That may be a high bar. Would all countries in the world collaborating, except for China, Taiwan and South Korea, even be able to do this?

> I'm sure that when Valve forgets what keeps them successful and start becoming a Netflix

By your own reasoning, Netflix did not 'become a Netflix' by doing anything wrong.

> An inevitable outcome of capitalism.

Not many things are actually inevitable. We could provide smaller companies some regulatory/tax advantages compared to larger ones, making them more competitive. If that's what society values, it can easily be done.

> But those are just low hanging fruits, i.e problems that humans were too lazy to deal with.

Some of these problems have had mathematicians dedicating their careers towards getting closer to a solution. Your comment reads like wishful thinking.

That's because the two reigning parties designed the system such that votes for other parties are in fact mostly wasted.

On the other hand, if humans could apparently do that work without automated verification, then perhaps so can agents.

Because there are about two dozen companies that do direct debits from that account. Some of them may be automatically informed of the change, but for most I'd have to figure out how to update my payment info. Similarly, friends and family might hold on to account numbers to send money back and forth. (Though that's probably less of a thing now, with all those apps for sharing convenient payment requests.)

And likewise Europe has a fair number of unicorns as well. But nothing like silicon valley.

Having to change IBAN is a hassle, and shouldn't have been necessary. In fact, I think some countries (Germany?) actually got that right, and allow you to take your IBAN with you when switching banks. Like keeping your phone number when switching telco.

Sure. It was also a lot less functional.

You're blaming JavaScript? The language that succeeded at delivering fully sandboxed rich client-side applications better than any other tech? With the worst incidents generally being 'just' various forms of fingerprinting?

Or, if you're thinking server-side JavaScript: would the web have been more secure running PHP and Python?

So they recommend that you debloat your TV by pasting a rather lengthy prompt into your coding agent, that'll take a long time to sort things out.

And then, near the bottom of the page, they provide a 9 lines of shell script that according to them does "everything the agent does". Uhh.. okay? I guess the agent would be for trouble shooting, but I'm not really sold on this modern of delivering software yet.

https://github.com/Gathin23/cleanyourtv/tree/main#doing-it-b...

Yeah, until your kid wants to use the PlayStation.

Why would you do attempts on someone else's server if you haven't been able to exploit a local server yet?

That sounds like a sensible approach to life even in less volatile times. Thank for elaborating!

> That would be sad, but I'm prepping my family for the latter.

How, if I may ask?

Picking a small registrar to optimize for reliability seems iffy. Perhaps today there's a passionate and knowledge owner personally picking up the phone (or empowering a small custom service department). But will that person still be doing that in 3 years time, or will they have moved on?

Your body actually is rather capable of making you acutely aware of most health conditions that require intervention.

Assuming you're not a specialized doctor, you're in no position to interpret that information. The person doing the interpreting usually has incentives that are perfectly misaligned with yours. And even assuming no malice, medical professionals tend to overestimate the benefit and underestimate the risk of the procedures they specialize in. One would hope that doctors would be required to be great statisticians, but alas..

> Changing it later on means that they got greedy nothing more nothing less.

Or just trying hard to keep the company afloat?

Just because they published Open Source code at some point, you feel that you're entitled to free updates for the rest of your life?

What's with the downvotes? Do people doubt that this type of work is something AI is particularly good at? Or is it just resentment against the resulting fact that making the right architectural decisions isn't as important as it was?

Meh, those types of large scale migrations are just a very short prompt nowadays.

Saving half in salaries might make up for some additional payroll complexity.

I just tried, and ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pretty sure this line of answering has been shoved in hard in post-training; it's walking a very delicate line.

?

If this was just raw LLM output, I'd agree with you. But I (naively?) assume they've at least had some subject matter experts look at this before making this claim, so as not to complete embarrass themselves?

Move fast and try not to break things.

I'm scared to find out what systems built using that methodology will be like.

Product design is mostly saying no to ideas. And occasionally yes, but only to a very select cohesive set.

Most people are terrible at that - though I think it's learnable to some extend. And at least current-day agents will generally just do whatever dumb shit the human says it wants.

Yeah, science needs to reinvent itself.

How about this: instead of going through publishers, researchers are required (by their funding organizations) to put a bounty on falsifying the result (for, say, 10 years). The higher the bounty, the higher the 'impact factor'. Put your money where your mouth is. A bounty of at least the cost of the study should be expected for serious research.

I can imagine a 'falsification insure' industry. They'd look at reputation as well as employ people close to the subject matter to asses risk, taking over the role of peer review. But with aligned incentives.

This way researchers and institutions who don't care too much about truth are marginalized; they either have low impact factors or they'll need to pay huge falsification insure fees.

And researchers who are sceptical of certain results will have an incentive (money!) to try to replicate it.

Remaining question: who is the authority on whether a publication has been falsified?