Grok just did these things for me, no questions asked, no ethical judgments. No woke.

Elon really doesn't get enough credit for Grok. People don't want the most powerful reasoning model or "constitutional AI". They just want a model that does what they say. Elon understood that insight (like he usually does) and no one else really did and that's probably why Grok has been growing rapidly over the last two years or so.

Self driving cars were the "monkey" 10 years ago but now they are largely derisked. I'd like to see Alphabet working on the next generation of innovations. For me personally, I'd like to see them work on:

- Teleportation. - Talking animals. - A cure for death.

I'm not seeing them work on anything remotely as ambitious these days!

Hard doesn't mean impactful. In fact that's one of the biggest mistakes I see junior engineers make! But glad you got that learning experience, as you become more senior you'll definitely develop a better understanding of what drives actual impact.

What's wise isn't forsaking technology, it's using technology to improve things, and developing new technology as well. What's wise is using AI as a power user and seeing how you can contribute to the intelligence age.

Celebrating a foregone past where human intelligence was more valuable is hopeless and naive at best.

It's like using Gmail and expecting them not to train their AI models on your data - how can you expect that when they're giving you a secure, reliable, highly functional email client completely for free?

The digital economy only works if everyone pays their fair share. If you don't want to give your data then you are really harming everyone by slowing down AI development for everyone else.

I'd rather not have intensive compute needed shifted onto my personal machine which I want to use for something else.

It would be selfish and unethical not to in my view. And ultimately the data is just being used in order to improve the models and benefit us, not for anything nefarious.

If you're building a automation as a company you definitely won't want to take on the long term maintenance overhead of running your own models for some automation project.

I could try to swim across the Pacific Ocean, walk across Siberia or consume a family size portion of McDonalds in a single sitting. All those things are hard. All those things have zero to negative ROI.

Doing hard things won't get you anywhere. Most hard things are useless. And a lot of the most valuable things are not hard at all.

The token cost and tech debt introduced by tests is just not worth it. There's usually no bugs and if there are, you can fix them quickly if and when it's needed.

I see absolutely no benefit to me as a end user for a local model which is going to take up more of my CPU and memory and slow down my machine. I almost always have Internet and if I don't then not having access to a AI model is the least of my concerns.

So what? You've saved a significant amount of time for a decent number of humans, and if those humans are working on other projects, the overall net output for the world is net positive compared to without LLMs.

You have to broaden your perspective. It's not just about how rsync was affected.

I would propose a rewrite of Postgres in another language like Rust, introducing a pluggable application layer on top. While ambitious in scope I think it would be helpful and even necessary.

It's a hot take but I do think the US should be more appreciative of Russia's longstanding contributions to the ISS and other space projects of international cooperation and factor that into sanctions decisions. We do need their help as much as they need ours in space, and the fact that they are still helping us despite our treatment of them speaks volumes about their leaders' character.