I'm like a 1-2 chats at a time kind of guy. I just don't see how I could keep my exact vision for the project otherwise.

But that's not the point. Where the tech ends is human-level intelligence that can do any task as well as a human and more cheaply.

Speaking globally, there are many more barriers to feeding everybody than just abundance, like the other guy said.

AI or no AI, the US will still have control over the economic activity inside of it. America is not pitched to be a ghost town, but instead a vastly productive and wealthy economy driven by AI. A ghost town cannot redistribute wealth it does not have, but America will still have all of the wealth.

I understand that regular people have lost faith in democracy, and that they think rich people control the world and make every major decision, but that just doesn't ring true to me. Democracy is more or less giving us what we vote for, we just vote for dumb things. Ultimately, I have faith that if political and economic circumstances change enough, we might actually vote for the right things.

Hating work is good, wanting it to all be automated is good. It is a pro-human flourishing stance, whereas keeping the majority of humanity laboring in jobs they dislike just to survive is against human flourishing in favor of the status quo.

Claude is even better at helping you understand the code base then it is at writing code! It can look at a bunch of files and give you an accurate run down in ten minutes.

I guess I don't blame you or anybody for having a deal of cynicism, but these arguments just don't seem very concrete. Like, if Dario was lying or not, he probably wouldn't share the actual numbers, and he probably would propose a "model lifecycle" accounting. And if the business model had potential or not, there probably would still be vast investment in the next model. Zitron has had nothing but cynicism towards AI from the start, and it's his whole shtick, and so these arguments don't seem very credible coming from him, even though they seem reasonable coming from you.

But it's not that unusual, right? If I build a house this year and sell it next year, the house might still be profitable even if next year I'm building 3 more houses, so the company as a whole is still in the red on an annual basis.

I mean, I'm not a financial expert but that doesn't seem all that unusual to me.

It doesn't even feel like particularly strange accounting to me. Aren't there plenty of companies that spend a lot in one year and realize the gains in the next year? If I build a house this year and sell it next year, the house was still profitable, even if next year I'm building 3 more houses to sell in the year after.

Also, I didn't read this whole thing, but I have yet to see Zitron respond to the strongest AI financials claim, which is that the models themselves are profitable on a life-cycle basis, even if the companies are not profitable on an annual basis due to capital expenditure. Dario made this claim exactly, and it more or less blows all of Zitron's financials arguments up.

"having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."

They do have knowledge of the info, but they don't have perception of it.

I'm guessing you and the other guy are taking issue with the words "aware of" when I'm just saying it has knowledge of these things. Awareness doesn't have to imply a continual conscious state.

It just doesn't make any sense to respond no in this situation, and so it confuses the LLM and so it looks for more context.

The fact that you responded to it tells it that it should do something, and so it looks for additional context (for the build mode change) to decide what to do.