No, we should substitute "unaccountable bureaucrats". The people who enter and leave power from elections are not the source of the daily frustrations people have with government, it's the rest.

They are smart, but they are not aware of the environment they're in, or any implicit context that someone whose doing a job carries with them, that's why all of that context has to be explicitly laid out in a prompt. When the context is provided, they are quite smart.

This is exactly the Canadian experience: restrictions without thought.

Ineffective mechanisms. So if we accept ineffective mechanisms as sufficient redress in those spheres, why not here too?

This is not correct. LLMs interpolate in a high dimensional space, so you're actually composing the best matches in a compressed corpus to find novel points/paths in that space. That is problem solving.

Do you verify every line of code written by your fellow developers? I doubt it, which is strange because they make errors don't they?

What matters is the error rate. Past some threshold and they're better than senior devs who you don't supervise closely.

That seems doable. Next generation architectures and the models they produce are accelerating progress. More capable with less data and compute, which ironically will drive more demand, aka Jevon's paradox.

> If you are someone in the executive team of any major tech company, know that your employees are, for the most part, completely and utterly miserable.

I agree this is a problem. Adopting too eagerly and too early, and not listening to feedback from the people who are using these tools is a recipe for disaster.

Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051221150412

> It's more about using LLMs to impersonate someone, but the point stands.

I personally knew someone that fell for the Nigerian prince scam 20 years ago. Same old tricks, just recycled in a new medium.

Boy do I wish that were the case. Investigative journalism is rare now and instead favours activist journalism, public debate is hard (but getting better), and institutional trust is at all time lows, for various reasons.

People will muddle through regardless, we're not as fragile as most assume.

This was always the case. Spin and propaganda are not new, the way it's conveyed has just become a bit easier. People are not as susceptible to misinformation as most assume, they recalibrate how much stock they put into the things they see based on the quality of the information environment. Basically everyone knows now that the internet has a low signal to noise ratio.

It's like having a naive but super knowledgeable junior developer starting under you. It's obvious you'd learn a lot in how to communicate, framing, specifications, and what kind of follow-up you'd need to do to ensure good results.

Sure, but also, who cares? The machine code is completely incidental for most purposes.

Why is it wasted? A powerful new tool was invented, and enthusiasts are exploring ways to harness it. They'll come away with the skill to wield this new tool effectively. The programs they're writing are completely secondary.

AI makes single purpose throw away tools easy to create. This is GREAT. I had to migrate an old Windows 2012 file server share to SharePoint. Microsoft's tools don't work on this old OS. Their SharePoint migration tool running on other machines on the local network constantly failed for nebulous reasons. I finally got fed up and spent a few hours with Gemini Pro and Claude and created a sync tool using C# that does the migration and keeps the network share in sync with SharePoint until we do the final cutover. I don't expect to ever use this tool again, and that's totally fine. I'll still put it on GitHub in case someone has a use for it, but I'm not sure why I should lament the fact that this tool exists and may never see another use or the fact that I won't maintain it.

Don't waste your life playing with shiny new toys, sure, but learning how to use AI by creating things is not a waste of time.

Plastic flow is laminar, where colour mixing requires turbulence. If you make a turbulent nozzle, it's basically impossible to print reliably with it (the pressure used to push filament out of the nozzle is mostly absorbed/redirect into turbulence).

It dies in terms of usefulness if it can't stay up to date with new knowledge. That is, it will no longer be used and thus effectively die off.