Like the previous poster mentioned, I'm not sure that's really such a quality of life improvement.

First of all, food. I don't know where you shop, but the cost has definitely doubled, even tripled.

Second of all, the idea that it's some "good" that these things are "cheap" relative to wages - before they may have been expensive, but they were also investments. It doesn't really matter that much, because you can save to obtain them, and don't need to worry about re-obtaining them. Being in a situation where durable goods are cheap, but cost of living is high, means that you are disproportionately struggling - you can't save anything, any good that these products provide is outweighed by it being too expensive to live...

Income has only raised ~15% (on average), while inflation has been at 30%... meanwhile in the past century, money has lost 96% of its value...

Not sure how that translates at all into "stuff" being more affordable...

Like you hint at, though, a tool is useful immediately and without end (at a particular task - windows operating systems remain useful despite whatever current version is being sold), the product is often an attempt to continuously derive value from the tool (attach a time limited license, offer "upgrades", new features, etc.).

A service is more like a product than a tool - selling data is not something that a tool can (by itself) provide (unless you accept virtual or test data).

Attaching a product mindset to a tool then becomes a matter of complication/value reduction, vs a product mindset to a consumable, like a game, or dataset, where the value is at least constant, if not growing over time.

I.e., I'm not sure I agree that the "enshittification cycle" is the variable here - even in the age of AI the value e.g. of a stock image service is constant or growing, even if the LLM generation process dilutes the market.

The concern is not goods produced, those are not "resources", except perhaps in the very limited sense that food is a "produce".

Energy, materials, those are resources.

Resources are, though. The planet cannot support a race of digital super-people, and us, and an continually growing economy.

It's the height of folly to think that, as things are going, we are going anywhere "good".

JS devs were kinda able to patch around the nonsense because they were able to feature-detect - part of the reason this stuck around was because no legitimate user or dev cared (or should care). But the header was mostly (useless) noise, and the people spoofing were dealing with the couple bad apples of the time.

Of course, defining features is easier said than done, and a standards body is a challenging environment to define these in...

I get why people are fingerprinting bots and others are working around it, but neither are "legitimate" applications - if your content is public, it's public, end of story. And working around these controls to sell botnet access to sites is equally illegitimate - nobody has a right to resell content they do not own...

Perhaps it is intentionally part of the design, but being a bit of a perfectionist, I failed a couple of times, and found that actually the longer words were (often) easier than the shorter ones...

Exactly. The sooner people stop trying to replace code with LLMs, the better. The technology is fundamentally untrustworthy, and given that we do not understand it, impossible to secure.

Only extremely simple code audited by multiple human authors, with actual proof of functionality (not just testing) can be considered secure.

Partly the issue is, it was never the right model.

If you write/wrote code, you were a manager. Probably a better one than your "people manager" ever was, but that is/was arguably a different skill. What you managed was extremely technical, more akin to a line manager or an operations manager than a people manager.

Which, yes, everyone could not be the manager. Everyone who was not the manager could be quality control (QC), and handle the parts that "only a human" could handle.

The problem is, AI fits in nowhere in this equation, rather it throws it out. AI can manage, like any manager it can short circuit it's QC, in pursuit of an arbitrary metric. Even the idea of "human in the loop" is fundamentally flawed - if the human is not at some level the one directing (managing), there is no reason to stop incuding the human, less and less, in the work.

AI is not useful to us.

The irony is, they are building their own competitor...

Yeah, we get that nobody can trust China/Russia/USA/Shady cabal of too-rich-people, but we stopped the atom bomb because it was MAD (mutually assured destruction).

We need a similar treaty to ban any use of AI in this fashion, because all that will happen is creation of weapons that are inevitably turned on their owners.

And then, yes, as a coalition, declare war on any country that violates this.

I hate to be a proponent for war, but one's coming either way. I'd prefer a relatively peaceful resolution to some of our problems, not a "oh my god the robots have rebelled, and we are losing" scenario.

Infinities of random sequences exist that can be shown not to contain all data, 0-8 (base 10) is one such random sequence that is trivially proven to never contain 9...

There are no known patterns to pi, but, (I am legitimately curious about this), are there any known sequences e.g. of 1 million 0s and a single other digit within the decimal sequence of pi?

Given how it (pi) looks, I'm of the strong suspicion is that the answer is "no". But of course, proving that requires that some property of the randomness is provable. Which it does feel as if, given there are different infinities, there are also different randomnesses, hence the conjecture is ill-formed and probably incorrect...

You don't run marathons to be usane bolt, you don't go to hackathons to land VC deals.

24 hours of non stop AI usage doesn't sound fun. It sounds hateful and demotivating, you want to discover yourself, and maybe some other people, not what a robot can do.

Put another way, you do not deny a proof by inference because it "leads to large numbers".

We don't need to speculate, we can see many, many examples today of more and less intelligent species, and also what happens to the less intelligent ones, even taking humans out of the equation.

I'd argue, even a machine intelligence that merely managed to be mildly smarter than us would be a threat. AGI merely has the potential to be infinitely smarter than us, but that's somewhat irrelevant given we might not even be smart enough to realize how much smarter they are (a cat will likely not appreciate the difference in intelligence between a dog, an elephant, or a dolphin, despite all those animals being generally smarter).

They are more characterized by how they grow and when they stop than by their "physical reality". Proof of this is in that different infinities exist - characterized precisely by how fast they grow, i.e., one "infinity" is "larger" than the other.

My point is, getting hung up on "infinity" as being unrealistic is not the point. It is the tool with which to understand how thing behave. The same as any calculus problem - you take the limit to the infinity to understand how the function behaves.

The issue is simple. Just like us (who are arguably complex, look at what we're building over here, this AI computer stuff!), entities have simple core needs (like food, water, power, etc.).

An infinitely smart AGI has the potential, nay, likely cause, to require infinite resources. We're already seeing the effect in the computing sector on e.g. chips, there's no reason to think this trend won't continue...

Lets circle back to the hydrogen argument, will we blow ourselves up. Real concern, abated by hard numbers. Different atmosphere, different concentrations, different pressure, different possible outcomes.

Today, we don't have those numbers. We don't have those calculations. I don't disagree with the point at the end "about how people can exploit other people, or through carelessness introduce immoral behavior into automated systems". These are issues, too. But saying there are other issues, don't worry about this big issue over here, is the absolute worse argument possible.

That's hand waving.

Fuzzy logic is fine, I suspect they saw something like this and got confused. I would recommend they think harder about how very pertinent boolean logic is to everything they are doing before dismissing it...