Imagine a very small LLM embedded into a MetaMask equivalent where you just specify the task you want to do - ie, "I want to send USDT on mainnet", "I want to import the token at address 0x..." - and the wallet assembles the UX for this task for the human to execute.

This is an incredibly good and concise articulation of where the role is going. Thank you.

I'm only suggesting (eventual) negotiations between countries and automated corporations - to operate here, you contribute equity.

My own $0.02 on the economics piece - every country should have a sovereign wealth fund. Governments should block market access from automated[0] companies until those companies provide equity contributions to the wealth fund for that country. This aligns regulator and corporate interests. Dividends flow into the sovereign wealth funds and then can be allocated locally from there - UBI, job programs, etc. Let different jurisdictions explore different ways to structure a post-labor society.

On the broader social front - I think a lot of lack of meaning discussion boils down to the overemphasis we have on your job as your self-worth. We need to realign our societal expectations - and people need to spend more time with their families.

[0] for this to work, I think we would need well accepted metrics for 'how automated' a company is - and that probably needs a 3rd party auditing industry.

I've not gone too deep down this train of thought because a standard library/ecosystem should be solid and I don't think LLMs are quite there... but if we can use LLMs+Lean maybe we can get the quality we need to bootstrap more of the Lean ecosystem?

One of the most interesting things he said was that the current waste from 3D printing (and other technology) is really a sign of technical immaturity; nature repurposes everything - there is no trash in an ecosystem, only food for something else. Maybe we'll eventually learn to build infrastructure like that.

Here are some of their current open weight offerings: https://www.arcee.ai/open-source-catalog

I just asked and Claude says it's Haiku.

A related physics metaphor - in general as you move from IC to SR to management, your focus shifts from changing the position to changing the velocity and acceleration of those around you.

Now the reasonable response to the above is that this should be happening in a dedicated authn/z concern - and that is correct! But when paranoia is called for, it's not unreasonable to have redundant checks in logic where authz is critical.

I'm currently of the opinion that humans should be laser focused on the data model. If you've got the right data model, the code is simpler. If you've got the relevant logical objects and events in the database with the right expressivity, you have a lot of optionality for pivoting as the architecture evolves.

It's about that solid foundation - and of course lots of tests on the other side.