Maybe "filtering" is a better term than "shielding", since the latter assumes an adversarial relationship between "devs" and "suits" at the outset, and the terms we use even to think to ourselves about these things influence how we ultimately behave.

On a very related note, I'm probably very late to this discussion, but has anyone else noticed autocomplete in JetBrains products has gotten significantly worse after the advent of LLMs? It would previously take into account type signatures and all kinds of context, now it's clearly just a very minimal next token generator, often producing code that doesn't even compile.

At least with an AK-47 or a hammer, once you own it physically, it's yours and the original creator isn't sending you subtle psychological nudges to utilize it one way or the other.

How many of those involved in AI genuinely believe some degree of the "If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies"-style narrative where "AGI" is a kind of omnipotent destroyer god that can also somehow be harnessed for "good" in the hands of "the right people"?

On this specific article itself, near the end:

> He recently used AI to research the history of false messiahs...

Anyone else see the irony here?

This is precisely the appeal of AI though, and a key factor in influencing people's attitudes towards it. Why would any AI company want to stop this? (I realize the author knows this already)

What's the definition of "AGI" these days? I've heard everything from "sci-fi simulated consciousness", to "does really good on benchmarks" to "whatever makes OpenAI X amount of money".

Perhaps the definition in this specific case is circular, "whenever humans stop writing and reading code"?

Weirdness aside, I'm continuing to write code as I used to, despite the overall company _cultural_ push towards AI, given the lack of direct orders, and pray my output is good enough that the "powers that be" leave me alone.

I am also in the job search process, and am also still noticing plenty of listings that don't mention AI.

Can't recall the name, but I remember thinking that was very clever once I understood why it was doing that, and am glad to see the concept explained directly here.

Sure, a materialist could go back and psychologize any glimmer of satisfaction anyone in the past might have felt as some kind of "cope", but we should at least give our ancestors the respect of properly representing their hierarchy of values.

In both cases you're reliant on other people's supply chains to get the hardware all of this stuff relies on.

As far as valuing some abstract ideal (global community) over the people actually in your life right now (local community), I guess all I can say is I can't see that working out well long-term, and hope you can find at least a few people to connect with now.

It's also worth noting that all of this musing on art isn't surprising in a way; the ancient world all the up to medieval times didn't really such much distinction between the craftsman and the artist, a sharp distinction between "functional" and "aesthetic" is quite a modern sensibility. Everything old is new again!

Why is this nihilist lens applied selectively to one pursuit and not others?