Re this being the FAA's choice, I was reacting to this line in the reporting: "On April 10, Levine and his lawyers pressed ahead by filing an emergency motion [... which... ] may have expedited the government’s next move [to replace] the sweeping flight restrictions with a “national security advisory” [and dropping] all mentions of flight restrictions and criminal charges." Maybe Ars is being too rosy-viewed about the causality there, idk. I have no partic feeling one way or the other though I do want to take whatever comfort I can in the notion that the "system of checks and balances" is working. I'd rather go to bed thinking it is, than tell myself cynically that this was just another whim of an agency, with no real principled attitude.

I believe that the Trump administration in particular - not Republicans as opposed to Democrats - has abused agency independence in a manner unprecedented in recent American politics. I think agencies SHOULD act autonomously to determine specifics just like this one - what vehicles/devices, with what capabilities, can fly where and in what manner, and that we SHOULD value "expert advice" in such situations instead of using that phrase as invective. I think the American people should celebrate that we grant such freedoms because it lets us all benefit from expertise - but they should also understand that there is a price to pay in vigilance, of having to challenge the legality of agency actions if the particular implementation of regulations infringes on constitutional rights. But it's not just litigation that will prevent abuse - the first line of defense against it should be the expectation that administrations will consider themselves beholden to certain social norms of cautious use of power. Do you believe that there is no daylight between this administration and previous ones in terms of how they view what norms they ought to consider themselves bound by? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - if you don't believe that, I am curious to know more.

I don't think legislatures can possibly identify a priori all the ways in which rights could possibly be infringed and make their grants so granular that agencies can't possibly find abusive interpretations. Those can only be determined in specific, real, cases, when fallible individuals attempt to meet the legislated objectives by taking concrete action. I don't understand this idea that federal agencies have become "unaccountable" merely because they issue intepretations every day as and when they encounter real-world situations. The Chevron doctrine seemed a perfectly fine compromise to me - how this court thinks the legislative body can magically divine all the future possibilities and encode them into the acts that govern the agencies is just beyond me.

edit: nm, archive can't get past the JS block.

I think what you are facing is a sense of how much the tools are just that - tools, and no substitute at all for what an experienced developer would try to plan for. So yes, I am sure everyone who's using AI tools for the first time has made this "newbie" mistake.

BUT I have also heard that the tools come with "modes" (or agents, or skills, or whatever you want to call them) where you can have it act _like_ an architect, that points out the things you ought to ALSO do. Like write tests, ensure idempotency etc.

I am curious what your experience would be if you went through some cycles of having the AI simply review its work and suggest improvements. Clearly you've already learned some things that you ought to add - I think documenting the progress you make as you discover these things would be immensely helpful to others like you who are new to this!

Good luck :)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45842442

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45485942

Points: 11

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44207588

Points: 15

# Comments: 6

For this argument to work, you have to stop at the donor themselves - you can't keep extending it ad infinitum to their descendants or inheritors. But in the case of the pre-committed amounts, like Gates and Buffett, that isn't the case.