This is a common occurrence.

......Unsettlingly that's also like 16GB of dram in a machine that might be measuring memory in TBs

only if the capital class is solely motivated by efficiency. I think this is trivially demonstrable to be not the case.

The capital class's primary interest is self-preservation - both of their capital, of course, but also preserving their place in the pecking order. And they'll spend a LOT of the former to maintain the latter because the latter is how they got the former.

Through that lens, GP's point is perfectly coherent.

"They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself."

Have you met... people? Yes there are literally many owners who do want employees to suffer. Or, perhaps worse, will tolerate tremendous amounts of suffering in the pursuit of minor other gains. (Amazon pee bottles come to mind.) It would somehow be a comforting kind of moustache-twirling comic book evil to say they just want people to suffer. Another to say they simply don't value human happiness (or lack of suffering) enough to not trade large amounts of it for small things they do care about.

I had a boss who was only willing to hire non-whites because he could inflict undesirable work on them, leaving more desirable work for the white employees.

I just want to end this by remarking that this presumption of owners being perfectly optimal, morally clean agents of free markets is absurd and honestly disgusting to bring to an argument.

That's a very high set of both static and scaling costs that eat away any profit you made by being nominally correct. Combined with the risk profile... you can't "just" go short a stock.

And yes, you can hedge losses with options or construct complicated options positions to try to hone in on a specific price movement you're anticpating. Now you have to deal with entering and exiting a complicated multi-instrument position without price slippage, AND you have theta decay and volatility-related price movements also eating away at the core money you're making by being nominally right.

Have people made money? Yes, for sure. There's also a lot of dead bodies and people who barely broke even despite theoretically having been right.

Because this version of AI is worth 10 trillion dollars.

While the pragmatic versions from realists you can find all over this thread are ultimately probably less of a speed boost than just having your CEO/local micromanager be conveniently on vacation during critical periods when the work actually gets done.

Why is it that all of these bigheaded corpo type people react to "anti-AI" sentiments with this strongman crap?

Are they surprised that people, especially young people who are going to head into the world to try to make their way, are NOT supportive of the idea they'll just be eternal slaves, or even unemployed nuisances, to feudal lords?

The whole fucking point of this system is for it to support people. "They" need to remember that or they're going to be reminded of it. Capitalism was cool as an evolutionary step but it's pretty fucking clear we're going to need another innovation here sometime soon.

My own experience with agents, I'd summarize as "the more the world model (which the LLM does not have) is not concretely represented by the text, the worse LLMs are at it."

So it's _great_ at HTML, CSS, markdown, and most cursory-inspected English. Good at javascript. OK at most languages. Then very bad at concurrent programming and closely-inspected English.

I also don't think your top-line conclusion is right at all. I'm quite the opposite opinion. The types "working out" does not actually give me hardly any conviction that the code actually works. And notably, LLMs seem good at making types work out (they're in the text!) but then still have code that's not actually at all right (for the world model).

I also find that types are not worth the often COPIOUS amounts of boilerplate that comes with them. Some of the worst code I've seen is using reflection to make something happen that would otherwise barely be metaprogramming in Python or Ruby.

But that's not to say types are useless. I just think rigorous static typing is not worth it. My current favorite way to program is Python, with an enthusiastic use of type hints, enforced by a good type checker (pyright). It gets you 99% of the benefits of traditional static typing, but you can also just tell the type checker to just look the other way for a moment if you're going to commit a dynamic typing.

"Do x" - for baseline, assume this generally does X fine.

"Do X, don't use javascript". - even if X already didn't use javascript, this will often perform worse. It will perform even _more_ worse if X is difficult or unusual to do without javascript even if there is some perfectly serviceable way to do it.

Also, despite "don't use javascript", sometimes it just still uses a little bit of javascript anyway, and usually in a spot that would actually be extremely annoying/inconvenient to them remove that js yourself (when you would've otherwise reconsidered your approach at a higher level, to either use js, or to just want something different that is easier to do without js).

If you're complaining that Valve owns a big list of games and a ton of eyeballs, and not being on that list means those eyeballs don't see you when they look at that list, idk what to tell you because they seem to have earned that part of their business pretty fairly.