Same thing Meta was doing before they fell behind.

It implies that China, which can cut through much red tape and has great (and improving) utilities and infrastructure, lots of energy, can just build normal datacenters and save the cost of dozens of space flights.

Maybe some people are wired differently where that works, and I'm stuck having to meet people in person to connect with them for real. Which could be a disadvantage for me.

The fact that you read a comment saying that people have lunch with each other and respond saying you've never been asked to have lunch with anyone is interesting.

I guess it varies by company and what the culture is, but it's surely totally normal to just have a friend in sales or something and hear about something going on.

I really doubt the person you're replying to orders people to have lunch.

Using that as an argument to say we don't have AGI doesn't really make sense.

Regardless of whether we do or don't have AGI, until I actually see the economy-ending job losses, I won't believe it.

The usual reaction or opinion from e.g. good C++ programmers switching to Rust is that the added guardrails and expressivity are great and make things easier.

> This reads like someone with ADHD took Adderall and accidentally focused hard for a day on the wrong thing. It has happened to me.

It is very far away from being a joke.

But if my goal was to run daily and my first step was to make an open source step tracker with a raspberry pi dock...

I mean it's a fun project!

But it really reminds me of something I would do that isn't entirely positive.

I guess if this writerdeck works persistently for many projects then fine. But if every 2 projects the writerdeck gets revamped then it seems like a way to get a dopamine hit or distract ones self. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem like it's a net benefit in terms of focus.

I mostly use Codex though, I can't be bothered to have more than one subscription.

You admit this possibility so I'm not arguing with you, but it seems far more plausible to me that we can build something better than the brain.

In the limit we can just grow brains and put them in computers anyway, then the debate is moot. That's a really hard problem but of course not physically impossible.

If 20% more medical knowledge would save more lives long term, there are actually people, probably some browsing this website right now, maybe the person you're responding to, that actually think killing people up to the expected number of lives saved is justified.

I would personally call that evil, but it is thought through.

As an adult I just practiced writing with my left hand loads for basically no reason, it's not that useful, but I still did it for some reason. Now I can write illegibly with either hand :)