yunwal

> Normies do not want claude code

I don’t think this is really true. If you work at tech companies the people in non-technical roles all request Claude code access, and I think this will gradually expand to most people who aren’t vehemently anti-AI

Or the user being an idiot. Saying this somewhat sarcastically, but there’s always someone who says “Go buy me a Rolex and have it shipped to my house” and then didn’t realize that could be $25,000

I will say it’s an excellent place to learn on-the-job engineering fundamentals as a junior if you’re ok with the otherwise shitty culture for a year or two. The high turnover also means they’re really efficient at training new people.

> How often are people “git clone”ing a repo without browsing to the GitHub site first?

What’s the point of this question? Would going to GitHub.com in my browser somehow protect me from a MITM attack here?

This is still pointless though. I mean it's valuable from a learning perspective but the parent is saying they want to contribute somehow. You can only learn so much from toy examples

> $150/month/resident

Was this supposed to be negligible?

I've tried to do this but with learning poker, and it's sort of a mixed bag. You kind of have to know what you don't know before you can get anything useful out of it. It can sort of help going from "I understand this concept, but not instinctively" to "I've drilled this enough that I could do things like this in my sleep", but it takes a lot of iteration and asking questions before it can settle on a series of instructive examples that each build on top of each other. You're still much better off with a well-written textbook.

I think it makes sense that the largest practitioner and beneficiary of a bad thing takes the brunt of the blame. No one can go around memorizing every factory that does bad stuff and which products originate from them.

I want to shop on your version of Amazon

> If I feed in 15 crown/root canal invoices into AI asking it it's opinion, it will tell me I have a very bad mouth

This is just blatantly made up. This doesn't even slightly resemble something an LLM would say

We're talking about robotics, not AI? AI-driven robotics so far has zero practical applications

Unless AI companies are willing to take on liability for bad decisions the bot makes some human who can be promoted or fired will need to roughly understand risks and tradeoffs of what ai does

This is just not how math has ever worked and seems like a completely incorrect lens to apply to this situation.

There’s no evidence that superhuman robots are around the corner, and even less evidence that such robots will be price competitive compared with human labor.

Someone has no hobbies

> or that crops in the rest of the world are particularly resistant to mechanization

The causality is somewhat mixed up here. People in the US don’t, for the most part, grow rice because it doesn’t pay a competitive wage in the US. So parts of the world with lower wages end up growing most of the rice.

> economy is 100% automated?

People thought tractors would automate everything too. They didn’t. There’s more to life and work than being able to generate text.

> “AI model submits false tip”, it doesn’t say anything about a form

The article mentions the website name in the first sentence, and it’s trivial to see that you submit a tip by filling out a form.

> It's not our job to attempt to solve large-scale societal issues caused by technological development

Says who?

> Note that pretty much every time during the industrial revolution a technology replaced human effort, it ended up creating more jobs and wealth in the long term

Note that since the 1970s, and throughout the entire personal computing era, median wages have not outpaced inflation. Fewer Americans have access to good schools, median home buying age has increased, access to good healthcare has decreased. So I think there’s good reason to believe the “more jobs and wealth in the long term” trend has reversed for most people.

This is absolutely not true. The reason nearly every mathematician believes the Riemann hypothesis is true is because out of zillions of discovered non-trivial zeros, so far 100% have been located at (0.5, <prime>). If we had only discovered 3 such points, nobody would give it much credence.

> you can't run experiments on your own

Who says?

> there is a possibility that a clinical trial run by AI could hack the trial get something approved when it wasn't safe or effective

This possibility already exists and nothing about AI fundamentally changes it

> humans would follow the spirit of the trial process

P-hacking has been a problem well before LLMs were wearing diapers

I would say this statement is incorrect, and if I had to guess, it will be for the next 5 years. Google’s main product is ads, followed by search, gmail, and Google Docs suite, and Gemini is not on track to dethrone either any time soon.

I think eventually we’ll substitute code review with statistical evals for some cases. Similar to how we do drug trials.

I don’t think that’s “the whole shtick” anymore than it is for something like cars. There are valid ways to use it as a tool to provide net new value, and inevitably a whole bunch of people will end up using it as a lazy machine anyway, especially if their country/society benefits from people using it that way (Americans in both cases).

If it's a threat to people's livelihood or sense of meaning, it makes sense to consider how we can prevent massive numbers of people (especially incredibly smart people) from becoming disgruntled, depressed, or destitute. Typically societies with a lot of unhappy people do not function well (perhaps by definition), even if they have some technological edge.

I can’t imagine anyone thinking filling out a form requires scary levels of power. It actually makes the model look incredibly dumb. It’s probably a real, stupid thing that happened.

LLMs were also a nice example of this before 2018 or so, so I wouldn't necessarily count on quantum computing being a disappointment forever.

In my view, it's not that socialism with a lowercase s as defined by worker ownership of the means of production has gotten way more popular, it's that "Socialist" has shifted to mean New Deal Democrat as the Democratic party has shifted towards being the party of business interests.

If you look at what Mamdani, arguably the face of American Socialism, is doing in NYC, it's basically deciding to hold businesses accountable for breaking laws and noticing where markets have failed to provide core needs in the city.