How do rules that inhibit what AI can be sold on the US market (adding additional costs to trading in that market) do anything to inhibit a competing nation from reaching ASI first? Insofar as they inhibit anyone from reaching ASI, its firms whose primary commercial interest is selling AI services in the US market, not foreign threat actors except to the extent those two categories overlap.

Yeah, asking for additional state-provided barriers to a market entry to a valuable market a provider already is one of a narrow few dominating only for firms that are a competitive threat is exactly regulatory capture.

But that is “plain monetary concerns and sabotage of competitors”, they are just more ambitious than most people doing sabotage of competitors in the fields they hope to dominate by that tactic.

Well, for the services (including Bedrock, but presumably now excluding those particular Anthropic models) that they offer a HIPAA BAA covering, pretty much, if you enter a BAA with them.

> I’ll probably make a lot of enemies by saying this, but do people realize that code is just a means to an end?

That’s literally the point. Those are all defects relative go the end served by code.

> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.

Code with bugs does not work. As you note, that is quite relevant to user’s concerns.

> Let’s face it: by the time I manually ship version 1.0 of a product, the AI-assisted version could have been deployed 10x faster.

We’re actually pretty much past the point where whether or not to use AI assistance at all is the issue usually being considered, the exact manner in which AI assistance is used is more likely to be the issue of concern, and the manners in which AI fails is quite relevant to that.

The anti-AI crowd doesn't care if AI creates bugs, they hate AI for being AI.

It’s the people trying to find the best way to use AI that care that—and under what circumstances—AI is prone to create bugs.

> At some point, execution speed starts to matter more than the elegance of the code.

At most one of the categories of issues you complained about relate to elegance of code, and that only is one possible sense of that category.

So, no, I wouldn’t object to using that label for the same property relationship even if it came with a different pattern of operation.

Dispensationalism isn’t a “millennia old”; its a 19th Century doctrine. (Younger than the United States, older than Christian Fundamentalism.)

Despite the Right trying to redefine antisemitism in terms of opposition to the State of Israel, anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are somewhwere between uncorrelated and anti-correlated. Certainly, dispensationalist, eschatologically-motivated Christian Zionism (the main reason for the tie between evangelicalism and support for Israel) is not at all associated with pro-Judaism.

> When you factor in that roughly half of evangelicals (which can be Democrats too mind you)

Evangelicals “can be” Democrats, but again the Israel-Evangelicalism tie is mainly specifically through dispensationalism, which is almost exclusive to White evangelicalism, and White evangelicals split about 85/15 Republican (or Republican-leaning independent) vs Democrat (+Dem leaners).

> I know we benefit militarily from Israel when you factor in all the technology we've designed for them, that we can use for ourselves (Iron dome comes to mind)

Funny that would be the example that comes to mind, because Iron Dome was developed by Israel (by Israeli state-owned defense firms), not by the US for Israel.

You may be confusing it with the similarly named American (proposed) “Golden Dome” system, whose name Iron Dome inspired, but we didn't develop.that for Israel either (in fact, it hasn’t actually been developed), the only connection to Israel is the inspiration for the name.

I would argue that is a strength, rather than a weakness. Consciousness is unobservable in any entity other than the observer, and its existence in others is pure conjecture, and irreducibly so.

Making it a criteria in a decision involves either acting on fantasy, or, more likely, acting on some unstated basis and using “consciousness” as a dishonest (perhaps to oneself most of all) rationalization.

Debating AI consciousness a real modern equivalent of the cliché (but purely fictional, invented later as a form of hostile mockery grounded in large part in sectarian bigotry) medieval scholastic debates over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

So was most of Roddenberry, Piller, et al., Star Trek. At its low ebb in Braga Star Trek, but even then...

The main results also don’t seem to know what a “model” is, as the two “models” it refers to are “stock Gemini 2.5 Pro” and “a retrieval-augmented version of NotebookLM”.

One of which is a model, and the other of which is an interface backed by different models depending on exactly when the analysis was performed.