My claim is that the cops in the article are walking around drug testing widely. Not literally everyone they see but if they are testing every white residue they see during any interaction with anyone, including bird droppings on the hood of someone's car, we've reached that point for all statistical purposes. The base rate fallacy will start applying.

Most inventions are a net positive: The steam engine, vaccines, chimneys.

A few are net-negative: grenades, leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation.

If we can no longer trust that a potential job candidate in a video call actually exists, they will have to be flown in. That's a cost. If we can no longer trust that an employee who wrote a document actually thought about it at all and must be questioned to make sure, that's a cost. Those costs will add up.

A written document or a video essay used to be proof-of-thought and now it's not. If we can't find new proofs of thought, and if AI doesn't get vastly better to the point where we can trust it blindly, then I think this will all be a net-negative.

One of the motivations to build data centers as fast as possible and improve tools as fast as possible may be to get to net-positive before it all gets banned. This article exists. The clock is ticking.

If you had a drunk-driver-detection machine that output "positive" 95% of the time when the driver is drunk and output "negative" 100% of the time when the driver is not drunk, and started administering the test to all drivers on a road, the probability that a positive detection is accurate is only 1.96%. That sounds exactly like what was happening: dragnet testing of bird droppings and little old ladies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_D...

If simple statistics are difficult for people to understand, the Base Rate Fallacy is right out.

If children are allowed to use AI as an omnipresent tool, what do you believe students should learn? Lots and LOTS of people would be perfectly happy to outsource all of their thinking to AI as soon as it's possible to do so.

It's perfectly healthy to use brand as a heuristic to help yourself more easily buy products that work well.

For example: "Buybacks concentrate cash in the hands of existing shareholders" is obviously false: the shareholders (via the company) did have cash and now they don't. The cash is distributed to the market. The quoted statement is precisely backwards.

> A big chunk of that cash just gets recycled

That doesn't mean anything.

> more financial claims (index funds, private equity, secondary shares, etc)

And do they sit on it? No, of course not. They invest it in things. Real actual things.

> buybacks

Already discussed

> M&A

If they use cash to pay for a merger, then the former owners now have cash that they will reinvest.

> balance sheets

Money on a balance sheet is actually money sitting in J.P. Morgan or whoever. Via fractional reserve lending, J.P. Morgan lends that money to businesses and home owners and real actual houses (or whatever) get built with it.

The counterfactual for AI spending really is other real actual hard spending.

Stock buybacks from who? When stock gets bought the money doesn't disappear into thin air; the same cash is now in someone else's hands. Those people would then want to invest it in something and then we're back to square one.

You assert that if not for AI, wealth wouldn't have been spent on materials, land, trades, ect. But I don't think you have any reason to think this. Money is just an abstraction. People would have necessarily done something with their land, labor, and skills. It isn't like there isn't unmet demand for things like houses or train tunnels or new-fangled types of aircraft or countless other things. Instead it's being spent on GPUs.

Ideas on how to fix it:

• actors should wear tiny headphones behind their ears (or wherever is not visible) to make noise that approximates the environment they will be shown in. They'll have to act over it.

• Foley artists should not be given video of the final scene to foley. They should be given only one single continuous very wide shot. This will solve the problem where foley artists keep doing ludicrous things like adding the sound of a pin dropping and hitting the ground (since it's shown on screen) in the context of a space ship that is in the process of exploding.

Even multiple exposures of one frame of film is, as far as I can tell, still generally considered one photograph.

If his images were real they would have shown the powered paraglider too. The images are a composite of photos that he took of the sun and a frame from the video that he took of the jumper.

Is it pretty? Certainly! It's art! But it's 'photography' the same way the 'So Yummy' YouTube channel is cooking.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6abePkXncCM

Even if he didn't have to adjust prices due to inflation, surely restaurants adjust the items on their menus frequently. I have been to a restaurant that printed new menus daily because it changed daily. It's like 10 sheets of paper or cardstock. It's not that expensive.

I did this myself and insisted on a unit half the capacity that the contractors wanted. Several flat-out refused. But it works perfectly! Approximately one day ever two years it can't keep up. Which means that all the other time it doesn't short-cycle. Perfect.

It's true in this one. Companies will design drones that comply with the very detailed regulations and go no further the same way car companies don't put seatbelts, airbags, or auto-brake devices into cars unless forced. The drone regulations are nearly done. Any further changes may take an act of congress.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2025-1908-0023

You can select a few comments at random and quickly find a pattern: people are concerned that the drones everywhere except in the densest of areas do not have to see where they are going. If they hit a manned aircraft it's the manned aircraft's fault and the drone operator has no legal liability. Does that sound like something FAA employees wrote themselves? How much motivation will be there to "iteratively refine" when they have no legal liability and even admitting that a possible improvement exists would create legal liability?

Same with smartphones. Smartphone apps existed but weren't as personalized and didn't serve nearly as diverse of content as they do now. It's night and day. Surely I don't need to pull up a graph of smartphone usage per day.

The number of people who care about having an objectively true understanding of as much of reality as possible is disappointingly small and I suspect that these photo trends are just making that fact more obvious.