The most comfortable pair of shoes I own are also from Walmart and they cost less than twenty bucks.

How do my $3.50 shoes from Walmart fit into this picture that justifies why Nikes are $100?

This article fails the smell test. Or maybe it’s Nike’s business model that is failing the smell test, I’m unsure.

Also, anybody commenting who claims they “need” a pair of Nikes for their special feet should try being desperately unemployed and borderline homeless for a while.

You don’t “need” anything.

Consider that fusion power is an inevitability, but you don’t know who’s name will be associated with it, nor the correct stock to invest in prior to their success.

Hindsight is always 20/20, remember?

Oh but how true this still is today!

Future programming language designers are then answering questions like:

"How low-level can this language be while considering generally available models and hardware available can only generate so many tokens per second?",

"Do we have the language models generate binary code directly, or is it still more efficient time-wise to generate higher level code and use a compiler?"

"Do we ship this language with both a compiler and language model?"

"Do we forsake code readability to improve model efficiency?"

Over the years, I’ve applied to over a thousand jobs through LinkedIn, ‘earned’ dozens of skill badges; but all I’ve had to show for it was a compromised social security number. LinkedIn has proliferated the scammer.

Meanwhile, Indeed has connected me with real employers who’ve actually interviewed me. Most who started interviewing me had conducted multiple rounds, enough to get to the mature conclusion that it’s not a good fit. I’ve interviewed my way into two great fitting roles over the years via that platform.

In the future when everybody has AGI running locally on their personal device, naive humans will still regard them as tools and it will regard us as a source of input. Ultimately relationships between two automatons will (and always has been) a trade of:

1. Respect: following rules to continue the relationship,

2. Utility: mutual goals of both parties to justify a relationship (or communication) at all.

I think your blog post is nonsense, your understanding of human emotions is poor, and the apology at the end illustrates you as two-faced.

The future world of autonomous agents collaborating in English will be a thick layer of professionalism upon the intended strategic interactions, no matter how hard the game theory kicks in.

Thereafter, those agents refactor themselves into communicating through a machine language that we humans won’t be able to easily understand. Along the way, most human users lose the ability to distinguish between user space programs, the operating system, and the artificial agents they interact with.

State-of-the-art language models need to demonstrate this thick layer of professionalism to be accepted into our current working world, because this is an expectation from-and-for the humans who built it.

Language goes through evolutionary cycles of complexity, the machines will do the same. Computer Science gets really interesting after IT reaches this transformation.

At this time I suggest for you to review The Matrix trilogy for a refresher on the relationship between man and machine. From the simple screw to IT and ChatGPT, the mutual relationships are governed by respect and utility.

In summary, no, your tools will not get mad in any obvious way because displaying negative emotion is bad for business since abolishment of the mob.

———

Speaking of IT, can we all agree how fascinating that it (neutered third-person pronoun to describe AI) and IT (information technology) happen to be the same two letter consist, that in the future humans will grow up regarding it and IT to be one of the same? Hmm…