Sounds like you're buying into reddit propaganda. The US spends more on social programs than it does on war, so apparently we have and can definitely find the courage to improve healthcare and hunger.

In fact, hunger is mostly not an issue in the united states.

This is obvious to the outsider. The premise that you made up for yourself is that Europe wants to change Meta and how it works to protect its citizens. It’s obvious to me that this is not the goal. The goal is to extract wealth from those companies under the guise of consumer protection.

The EU makes more from regulating and taxing US tech companies than it makes from its own quaint tech sector. Ban and blocking those companies is never going to happen for this reason. Why destroy your cash cow?

If humans are expected to monitor them using the skill then obviously they are still practicing the skill and the skill is developed and maintained. Help me understand why it is so difficult for everybody with this opinion to take a another step into their premise?

> humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors

Let's assume this is true for sake of discussion: That's the job, pre-llm or not. Air traffic control? occasional errors. Software bugs? occasional errors. Department of homeland security? occasional threats

If it's hard and required that we handle the issue, then it's a skill that people will naturally exercise and the skill therefore won't atrophy.

If your argument was true we'd have swarms of people doing accounting by hand instead of using accounting tools because you're worried that the accountants will atrophy their ability to audit the output of the tools.

That's not how it works in the real world and we have plenty of examples of it...

But sure, if your argument simply boils down to "this time...it's different" like the author is arguing, then let's leave it at that. There's no value in discussing it further just like there was no value in the original post. It was just mindless slop to promote "standup for me" which is also something that falls under the category of: "things that are no longer relevant because of llms"

> Skill atrophy

If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.

> Even if they set out fully intending to provide the highest level of scrutiny to all generated code, they will gradually lose the ability to tell a good change from a bad one

If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change from bad ones (second order effect) and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect). Seems like your "problem" is self correcting?

> At its core, the only defense I’ve got for that response is… this time feels different? Not a particularly rigorous defense, I admit, but I did warn you that this was the squishiest of the issues at hand.

Well, if you knew this perhaps it was better just not to lead with it and spend so many paragraphs on it.

> Some might argue that, even if that time comes eventually, that’s no reason not to make use of the tools that are available right now. But it should come as no surprise that I disagree. Better not to become overly dependent on AI coding agents in the first place so you’ll be better situated to weather the storm (and maybe even thrive) when it comes.

Well this argument didn't turn out to be any less squishy than the first one. It's a self correcting "problem" but you disagree and we should do X because you said so. What was the point of all of this then?

> Prompt Injection

I also think this will likely always be a problem but you can pretty much point at ANY tool we use in software development. Your viewpoint would be similar to saying we should stop using libraries because there's always going to be a vulnerability when you distribute code that somewhere in the chain a bad actor can inject malicious code even if the library was created by a trusted source in the industry. We have plenty of examples of this happening in real life. So far, still squishy.

> Copyright/licensing > I’m not a lawyer! I’m a legal layperson offering my unqualified assessment of some tricky legal questions. Let’s get to it.

Sigh, this entire post is slop isn't it? Bad look for whatever "standup for me is".

edit: Standup for me is something that is made entirely irrelevant by agentic LLMs, no surprise. The irony is rich.

The author wants to be the gatekeeper of skill, quality, and how we develop while they hand feed us slop in the form of their blog posts.

yet another classic bullshit doomer prediction that never plays out where you'll conveniently not be around to admit you're wrong about.

> Oh, am I to believe space mining fantasies maybe?

You don't need to, we're already at the point where we are using space and resources outside of our for economic growth, so it's not some kind of fantasy. We also have this celestial body that is used throughout the planet called "the Sun" which already makes your closed system argument fall apart, unless your worried about us being close to peak utilization of the sun too.

> It actually is. The concept of "decoupling" of the economy from material resources has been debunked for a while now.

Hilarious how something can be "debunked" yet it's exactly how the metric for "growth" that you're talking about functions today. Again if you add up the combined valuation for every company today did you think it's based on material resources? It's obviously not. Your first clue is that the valuation of companies is calculated and expressed as a dollar which is not backed by ANYTHING material. If the thing that you're using to measure growth in an economy is already an abstract concept with no basis on material resource, then it follows that "growth" is NOT CONSTRAINED by material resource.

Or did you think every time nvidia announces their quarterly results and the market puts a valuation on nvidia that we are allocating materials to nvidia? Again, your model of reality sucks. It doesn't fit.

Your closest peer is that guy that's a diehard fan of a sports team from their hometown that keeps losing but it doesn't matter because being a fan and supporting the hometown is more important than performing the sport well.

That's you. Your model of reality fails every single day but it doesn't matter because you're a fan of your bad model. The worst part? You keep telling everybody around you to place a bet on your model with their life savings despite never being able to produce an example where your model was right

I'm pretty sure OP wrote their own version of playwright because they didn't know this existed.

It most certainly does not require any glue code. Playwright cli gives you basically all of this out of the box.

https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-cli?tab=readme-ov-fi...

If this is true then how are there more people than ever, fewer famines than ever? Migrations due to climate has been a part of human history since the beginning of all of human, and animal history. It's almost as if that's the default state of being. Are people migrating more than ever? Yes, but not just because of climate change, because it's so god damn easy to do so in modern times.

We aren't walking across a sheet of ice to try to survive a drought. We are on boats with motors and a life vest at our worst, in first class getting wine and dined at our most hedonistic. Entire (illegal) migration pipelines have been made and turned into a black-market economy. There are government funded apps created to support these migration pipelines.

Again, you're a doomer that has failed to predict the impact of what you're observing, and it mostly comes down to the fact that you underestimate human creativeness and ingenuity, and human drive for progress.

You frame every scenario as if humans will just stare at impending doom like deer in headlights and let it wash over them, while at the same time arguing that mass amounts of people are so adaptable that they would be willing to traverse the entire globe to find a better life. Your model of reality contradicts itself from the very start.

Good thing we are not confined to a closed system in any practical sense. You act like we haven't already used space for economic growth. It's also a good thing that the concept of "growth" in this context is not limited by physical constraints. You're talking about growth of value, not growth in a physical sense. Did you think the valuation of every company was based on something physical 1:1? Do you live somewhere whose financial system is based on a gold standard or something? There are multiple levels where your idea falls apart.

Crazy to so confidently assert an idea which is conceptually flawed on a surface level.

You actually think the economy has reached the point of maximum growth due to the laws of thermodynamics? Please tell me you didn't formulate your entire worldview on this idea because it's unlikely that you can function in this society in a way that makes your life better or those around you better with this flawed model of reality.

Doomers are always hurting themselves first and foremost and then dragging everybody else around them down with them.

Zoom out buddy, the 2008 financial crisis is a blip. The world's financial system is almost exactly the same as it was pre-2008. Hardly the collapse that made the world stop spinning that doomers have a fetish for. That's not a good example to support your argument.

You fundamentally cannot grasp the concept of doomerism. Doomerism isn't simply observing some first order effect "The oceans will increase by 2 degrees".

Doomerism is observing that first order effect and trying to assert that we should change behavior at a societal level because they above everybody else, can predict what the secondary or tertiary+ effects are for society. "The oceans will increase by 2 degrees, all marine life will perish, hurricanes will make vast swaths of the world uninhabitable. Therefore we should stop eating beef!"

And they are wrong about it every - single - time. Do you need examples?

Society has a long history of ignoring doomers, and the impact? Society is right and Doomers are consistently wrong.

Society keeps going. We have all of history up until the current moment, but from that we understand so far, Doomers have never been right about how disruptive their observations are for society at large. If you want to provide a contradiction to this statement please do so.

Nuclear power doomers -> completely wrong. Fukashima was the latest that proved this

Covid doomers -> wrong. in 50 years covid will be as forgotten as the spanish flu was.

Climate doomers -> wrong. famines are down across the globe and population still growing, still no clear example of the disruption to society or world in a way that is new. For any disruption we can find historical disruptions of the same category with more impact to humans and the world. Floods? More people killed in historical floods and more societies extinguished from them >100 years ago. Fires? More people killed in fires and more cities completely burned down from them >100 years ago.

Overpopulation doomers -> wrong, population still growing, but leveling off and not collapsing

AI doomers -> wrong on both sides so far. no bubble pop, capabilities still advancing, humans are also still relevant

Peak oil doomers -> completely wrong, more oil being discovered, didn't account for technology, didn't account for other forms of energy

With this kind of track record, you'd think that doomers would have enough self reflection to realize that their model of reality is insufficient at predicting outcomes and shut the fuck up, but nope - they just keep on trying to force a square peg into a round hole while annoying everybody around them who are trying to do something to move the needle towards a better life that doesn't involve becoming a vegetable so the earth can heal or whatever.

Compare this against another model of reality: Whatever challenges humans face, when it's dire enough, we will adapt and overcome.

You can backtest this model against all of human history. It would be dishonest to say that this model isn't more accurate so far than whatever model you're using as a doomer.

No need for doomers to virtue signal and lecture everybody about their shitty model of reality that fails to backtest

So you're all just out here telling everybody they should stop what they are doing because of the doom, but the doom isn't that impactful in the grand scheme of things?

That checks out with my understanding of doomers. Just a bunch of useless whiners that produce a bunch of meaningless noise for everybody else.

> “Doom” is instead when swaths of Roman citizens with rights amidst a powerful, civically and technologically impressive hegemony, over time find themselves reduced to unfree serfs. They and their descendants would remain in that position for centuries until a horrific disease came through and killed so many of them that the serfdom became untenable.

And look at where we are now. Rome has been surpassed many times over. The quality of life for the average living person is FAR SURPASSED anything that anybody in Rome could dream of. Seems like it wasn't worth worrying about what happened in Rome. If you make "doom" some kind of local event that affects a small group of people in a short window of time while trying to tell everybody they should hit the brakes and pause - maybe you should reflect on how these two things contradict each other.

In other words, if the doom isn't that doomful in the grand scheme of things then your argument is just again, moving goalposts. There are clear examples for every doom scenario you're talking about where the world moved on and built bigger and better. I guess it's on you to wait until that's no longer true but until then the ball is in your court. Just realize that you should at some point reflect and realize that every swing and miss is just more evidence that doomers are consistently wrong about the impact of their observations.

All signs point to you being a doomer that is excellent at moving the goal post. "If it doesn't happen tomorrow surely it will happen the next day."

You can do this until the end of time. A waste of brain cycles for anybody with a real job. This is the exact same pattern for every single kind of doomer and they are all wrong in the exact same way over and over. You still can't name a single doomer point of view that has played out to some kind of catastrophic society collapsing event accurately.

It's always "it's coming" eventually.

Running out of oil, overpopulation, financial system collapse that sends us back to the dark ages, climate change that causes everybody to move migrate to Colorado, a coronavirus that permanently makes us board up indoors. None of it ever plays out the way you doomers fantasize about it playing out.

When some kind of catastrophic society collapsing event happens it's most likely going to be because of something that is not in the mainstream consciousness.

If doomers were good at predicting these events and how it will play out they'd all be rich as hell, but no, they are for the most part a bunch of broke whiners. (Except for those doomers that have made their wealth off of scaring people)

- Surveillance schizos - Society still works

- Global Pedophile Cabal schizos - Again, funny use of 'doomers' but that's what the current society seems to be run by so I wouldn't say it's fitting for doomerism.

- People who predicted the flood of people entering Software via bootcamps, etc. would never cause any problems because their god of software is consuming the world too quickly for supply and demand to ever be a real concern.

   -- I'm a software "engineer" for ~14 years now. I still have no concern.

That's generous. Climate scientists were right, climate doomers were definitely wrong.

Society is mostly unchanged due to climate change. That's not to say climate has no effect, but it is certainly still not some doomer scenario that's played out. New York and Florida are most certainly not underwater as predicted by the famous "Inconvenient Truth". People still live in deserts just as they always have. Human lifespan is still increasing. We have less hunger worldwide than ever before, etc.

Climate change doomers conveniently leave out the part where climate has ALWAYS affected society and is one of the main inputs to our existence, therefore we are extremely adaptable to it.

Before "climate change" ever entered the general consciousness, climate wiped out civilizations MORE FREQUENTLY than it does now. All signs point to doomers being wrong and yet they all hold onto it stubbornly.

Doomers were never impressive because they got anything right, they are impressive because they have the unique skill of moving the goalpost when they are wrong. Any time you think the goalpost can't be moved further out, they prove it's possible.

Again:

The only people that fear what is coming are those that lack imagination and think we are going to run out of things to do, or run out of problems to create and solve.