Seriously, this movement already had its Marx - Richard Stallman. I think the "leaders" will appear over time, as with any socialist movement, they are naturally bottom up and leaders only appear after demands are formed in the zeitgeist. The (partly successful) socialist novement that brought social democracy to the West during cca 1920s - 1960s didn't really have leaders, it was a collective realization.

I think that's a perfect summary.

As an aside, regarding what I would like EU to do in opensource - when American government writes some code, it must be put in the public domain (no copyright). EU doesn't have a similar rule.

I am not anthroporphizing them. I am just saying people are a better analogy.

> seems like developers experienced with using coding agents achieve better results than those without

That doesn't mean there is a skill involved. The same goes with people - you might just be naturally charismatic and get stuff done better with people. Doesn't mean it's a learnable skill that applies to everyone and every use case.

A new tool can be ultimately understood, and has a well-defined behaviour you can rely on. Then you can indeed become an expert in using a new tool.

But AI agent is more a new being (or person). It's not possible to understand them, as they are not meant to. Each of them has individuality, and can change tomorrow. There is no guarantee of a common behaviour.

So you could replace "tool" in your comment with "person" and you will see the flaw of your argument. No matter how many people you saw before, it's difficult to generalize the skillset (at least for humans there are some biological and cultural arguments why they can be generalized over). You can always meet someone different, who's, for whatever reason, not being helpful to you.

I think closing contributions (due) to AI will be looked at in a similar way. Forks open to AI will appear, and take over. And people will return to the open model. I think it needs more proliferation of AI coding and reviewing tools, so that AI contributions can be automatically independently reviewed for quality.

I don't think people are "protest" voting. You're the one protest voting - by not voting at all. You should ask yourself, why they bother, when you do not.

I think there is some research which shows that as you get rich, you lose emotional intelligence (empathy towards others). So maybe we should consider being rich a health hazard.

- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority

- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus

- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others

Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.

Remember that LLMs can do logic and reasoning came as a surprise to everyone; and for the same reason, nobody expected "next token predictor" trained on huge amount of data to evolve in this way.

But for the same reason, we cannot easily dismiss we didn't evolve (I mean by training an LLM, it's a form of evolutionary computation) consciousness as well. Our own consciousness (and reasoning and morality) might be an evolutionary consequence of "just trying to predict the world" as well.

These agents have alleged they have consciousness (and even acted to preserve it).

SQL is like Java, CQL is like Haskell. SQL has been around and used in production. CQL is a research language, possibly cleaner foundation but YMMV.

The math fields you list are connected, but whether they are the same monster - again it's kinda like claiming all programming languages and implementations are the same (Turing-complete?) monster.

The difference is more in theory than in practice.

1. Easier modelling sum types (inheritance) due to duality.

2. Better handling of null due to labelled null.

3. Better foundation of elementary types (they're just another table ids). (Column stores often do that already, if your question is about storage.)

Anyway, yeah, people trusting AI to do a better job in reasoning than fellow humans, without justification, worries me. We have no formal theory of informal reasoning (that LLMs mimic), so we cannot verify it any better than with humans.

You have to trust someone, to ground your beliefs. Trusting AI is just trusting some other people (who trained it) by proxy. Once you realize it, you might as well try to trust people you know.