I’ve been on 2 failed projects that have been entirely AI generated and it’s not that agents slow down and you can just send more agents to work on projects for longer, it’s that they becoming completely unable to make any progress whatsoever, and whatever progress they do make is wrong.

Check out the other reply and scroll down a bit…

The thing that frustrates me most about libertarians is how everything they don’t want is regulation or government spending, but everything they do want is provided by the grace of god or something.

The comment that you cite doesn’t actually have any supporting citations…

> Rules are rules, unless someone thinks that bikers are special and aren't subject to the same laws the rest of us have to follow.

I would love for enforcement of cyclists who break the law to increase. But that would require actually providing working infrastructure for bikes.

You can’t write someone a ticket for not riding in a bike lane when literally every single block someone has parked in the bike lane. If there was a place where every single day on every block, someone parked in the only road for cars in a major city and on a major road artery, this would be a national news story. But this is what happens on weekdays at ~8:45am where I am in LA.

Every city also has completely different rules about cycling, which very few people bother to know about. In many cities it’s fine to ride on the sidewalk.

> And it's not intuitively obvious which combinations of values allow you to recover which other ones.

I think it's pretty intuitive that Zip Code and DOB are identifiers. That's why they count as such in HIPAA, and are used to demonstrate identity by governments, credit cards, etc.

Personally I think this stuff just poisons the well when it comes to discussions of privacy. I think the goal is to remove the expectation of anonymity by claiming that it's never possible.

A couple years ago, I got into an argument on reddit where someone claimed that any mapping could be recovered "using deep learning techniques" (e.g. if you take 3*0 = 0, you can get back that the original value was 3 with no other information except for the value "0"), and that obviously I was just too stupid to understand deep learning if I couldn't see that.

The effects are more pronounced depending on what field we're talking about. For example, in physics, I'd imagine most people have at least the fundamentals of programming down, even if software design may be lacking. In the field I work in (Neuroimaging), a lot of PI's are doctors or neuropsychologists, and might barely even know how to use a computer.

The sad part is that to a lot of scientists and researchers, software/software engineers isn't something worth paying for. It's not uncommon to see "programmer" jobs that are looking for 3+ years of experience that offer <$15 dollars an hour in the US. Sometimes they're "volunteer intern" positions. Of course the people who end up filling these positions aren't usually actual developers, so the software gets built poorly, eventually gets scrapped, and the cycle continues.

Management also hasn't really evolved past the 90's. Non-technical scientists often want 100% of control and to make each decision, but don't want to spend any time on it. This means developers often have little to no specs to work with, but spend all of their time guessing about what the scientists want, and having to go back and fix everything after.

>“That’s really the tragedy of the funding agencies in general,” says Carpenter. “They’ll fund 50 different groups to make 50 different algorithms, but they won’t pay for one software engineer.”

This is the crux of my frustration. It's not even 50 different algorithms often. A lot of the time, 50 different research groups will be working on very similar programs, and none will be able to deliver a working version.

Though the article mentions that research funding does exist, clicking on one of those funding pages and looking through their examples reveals that only ~1/10 of their websites are actually still active, and they aren't old sites. Again this goes back to the whole "scientists don't value software thing". I've seen scientists happily sign off on spending $20,000+ on hardware components that would usually cost <$100 to make, but balk at contributing $50 yearly to support open source.

I got lucky that I managed to find a place where I get paid fairly, and my boss is actually technical and can manage tech projects well, but these places are few and far between.

Generally, I see the concept of "you shouldn't be able to know anything about me, but I should be able to know everything about you" everywhere.

Notably in tech circles, this is prevalent in how we see hacking.

People who hack into other people's computers, IT people who snoop onto employee accounts, and people who support personal data breaches like the Fappening (saying stuff like "if they don't want to have their images become public, they shouldn't have taken them"), and publishing of personal emails (e.g. Wikileaks), all have had conversations with me complaining that Facebook is violating their privacy rights. None have recognized that what they are involved in is way, way worse than anything that Facebook has done.

It's easy to look from the outside in and question how these people could fall for these types of frauds, but I think most people are more susceptible to them than they realize.

Really, what cons are about is selling people a version of the future that they want. With Delvey, her associates were probably motivated to believe her because she spent money freely, and she seemed to belong to a "higher" social order.

What Holmes was selling wasn't blood testing kits, she was selling the idea that healthcare could be "disrupted" and progress the same way that software could. I'm not exactly sure who Tom Draper is or what he said, but for wealthy older people, who may have significant financial stakes in Theranos, you can see why this would be an attractive reality. In contrast, the alternate reality -- that you got suckered in by a fraudster and the progression of healthcare will be as slow and bureaucratic as ever (which means the quality of your life over the next 30 years will slowly, then quickly, decline probably past the point where you will logically want to live anymore)-- seems far less appealing.

It reminds me of someone who I worked with who was a Libertarian. He used to go around trying to "convert" people, and the only things he would ask was "Wouldn't you like to pay less money in taxes? If you didn't have to pay taxes what would you buy? Can you imagine how much money you would make if you didn't have to pay taxes?". He managed to convince like 90% of people that way.

You can't have people vote for anything shiny with "JOBS" written on it, and then get outraged when corporations get tax breaks.

Continuous outrage leads to the same results as continuous praise: Leaders who don't feel bound to the laws that their constituents have created.

And I know about the state programs, that's why I specified about the city grants.

As someone who works in science, I hate that this was just kind of a side note in this article.

If you want to know how to create a replication crisis, just value "novelty" and "disruption" way more than correctness and replicability.