Some people put their efforts towards changes that will reduce the most suffering for the most people.

Others enact change that will most individually benefit themselves.

Still others enact whichever attempts at change require the least effort.

And some (like me) want to enact whichever changes will reduce suffering specifically for the people close to them.

If the only thing that changes from me reading headlines is my emotional state and not my decisions, I'm going to just stop with the headlines because they exacerbate anxiety and insomnia and my family needs my attention more.

I don't find this position pathetic at all.

Apply whatever insult you want to it, but I'm finished.

Making a data center in my home town? I'm going to do anything I can to stop it.

Entertainment companies serving slop instead of art? Meh, I'll just rewatch old favorites.

To try to discuss more productively: I already thought Monet was overrated, and this was a long-held and considered opinion, not just a knee-jerk reaction to this post.

The post seemed to serve as a pepsi-challenge that confirmed what I already thought, but you're right that it's all cherrypicked anyway. That's the part I didn't consider so carefully.

That's because those are famously difficult questions to answer.

As a digital artist, of course I rolled my eyes at the time, but these days I just keep thinking about that storyline more and more.

We've basically transitioned to a world where digital art is almost the default, but I think the world is going to value physical art much more highly in the coming years.

I think Monet just wasn't as good as his renown purports.

EDIT: I doubt this experiment would go similarly for a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo.

To me that's like living in a transparent house where your landlord can always watch you but it's fine because you really like the nice showerhead.

Even as a kid, me and all my friends used to groan when the commercial breaks came on. I've been muting commercials since I knew how to use a mute button.

*except maybe Valve.

That thing Windows has where you can drag a window to the top of the desktop and it pops up a few quick options for resizing. I would love it if KDE Plasma had this.

Right there. That's where you made the decision, and that's where you went wrong.

>I don't think you fully understand how agents and coding assistants work. By design they are completely autonomous and work by reusing your own personal credentials. As they are completely autonomous, they can apply arbitrary changes.

Yes, and someone somewhere decided to use a coding assistant that can apply arbitrary changes, knowing full well that LLMs are known to hallucinate and make mistakes, and not rarely.

> Why do you even presume that people explicitly grant permissions? That's not how it works at all.

How can you say this with a straight face? Did the LLM hack its way into your workflow? No, someone chose to use it. It doesn't matter that it's autonomous once you enter your prompt. That's actually all the more reason to not allow it to make changes.

> If you wish to criticize a topic, the very least you must do is get acquainted with the topic. Otherwise you'll spend your time arguing with your misplaced beliefs instead if the actual problem.

And if you want to argue with me, you need to actually read and understand what I'm saying.

Say you're staying in the hopsital, and instead of a human nurse making adjustments to your medication, the doctor has an LLM that interfaces directly with the pharmacy and your IV pump. It can make changes to your medication and your dosage without a human ever being involved.

If you overdose because the LLM hallucinated, would you consider an acceptable excuse if the doctor says

"I don't think you fully understand how agents and nursing assistants work. By design they are completely autonomous and work by reusing your own personal credentials. As they are completely autonomous, they can apply arbitrary changes. I mean, nursing assistants nowadays prescribe their own meds on the fly. Why do you even presume that people explicitly grant permissions? That's not how it works at all."

I wouldn't.