> And what does "EU goes off the rails" actually mean here?

It means, "what if the EU starts acting belligerently to other countries like the US has?" Where, hypothetically, would someone move their data since now the US and EU are off the table?

And if your answer is "well, you see that would simply be impossible because ", then I guess you're an example of someone believing that EU politics will forever remain sane.

> that's why we have elections, votes and referendums, because people and states have different opinions about what is sane vs not.

Same situation as the US...

Meanwhile, "researching" chat control, VPN restrictions, etc.? "Oh it's just research, they're not actually going to do it."

It makes a lot more sense if you realize pretty much the sole motivation behind all this digital virtue signaling is "put my data somewhere Trump isn't."

Notice how no one really lists contingencies for "what if the EU goes off the rails"? There's always an implicit assumption that EU politics will always be "sane" (read: "aligned with my personal politics").

Yeah the problem is you'll never get a politician to say "OK, _this_ is what we've determined the 'happy medium' is and we're going to codify in law that it will never go beyond this point." It'll just keep inching further and further and anytime someone complains, just go back to step one and dish out some more "elder statesman" wisdom about having to find a "happy medium." Rinse and repeat. Worked on you, didn't it?

Even cheaper would just be to not do it in the first place. Was there a pressing need to rewrite it?

Perhaps the "billionaire sympathizers" are people who can manage to see that the bar for what is considered an unacceptable amount of wealth will keep being revised lower and lower until it affects them. Here you are already proposing that a person shouldn't be allowed to earn more than a total of a million dollars in income every year, which caps one's lifetime wealth accumulation at $40-60M[0]. Which would make anyone able to achieve anywhere close to that sum as wealthy as today's wealthiest persons. After which the next person will suggest that such a thing shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society.

0: assuming you can start earning that much starting at age 20 and you intend on retiring between 60 to 80, so obviously the range can go up or down a bit.

One giant PR versus dozens of smaller ones, what's the difference? LLMs are going to send it your way whether you like it or not. No one is going to argue that usage of LLMs is going to lead to less code that has to be reviewed than normal, are they? It's by design since you're able to produce more code now, remember?

> There's an expectation that you are asking someone to take time to read it, and with LLMs now the cost to generate things to be read is a lot lower but our attention and capacity to read them remains the same.

I could understand this argument if this had been a 500 word blog post expanded out to 50K words, but it's not. And who's to say the author didn't write most of it and just had an LLM do a little polishing?

The user interacts with the code, and if it's sloppy AI generated code, it's going to impact the user somehow. Be it through poor performance, bugs, security holes, you name it.

Maybe I was naive in thinking the bar was higher than "as long as I can't tell an LLM wrote it that's good enough for me."

Sure it does. Boys and girls are different. Hence, they receive different treatment, which the OP was originally befuddled by.

This seems like the _perfect_ use for an LLM: systematically porting over as much of the "ecosystem" to Typst as possible. Is anyone doing that?

The implication here is software engineer jobs are still safe despite basically free labor/material being available to do said jobs because he thinks other people would prefer to pay experienced professionals to do it right at a significantly higher cost. My point is, I think most people will take the low-stakes gamble of having the cheap AI agent do it with self-supervision[0]. He's naive in thinking people are really going to care about artisanal software built by experienced professionals in the future.

0: Even if you subscribe to the "your job will be to supervise the agents" train of thought, you're kinda glossing over the fact that it's probably gonna involve a pretty significant pay cut and the looming problem of "how do new experienced professionals get created if they don't have to/don't need to get their hands dirty"?

I don't buy this argument at all. I think if we could pay $20/month to a service that would send over a junior plumber/carpenter/electrician with an encyclopedic knowledge of the craft, did the right thing the majority of the time, and we could observe and direct them, we'd all sign up for that in a heartbeat. Worst case, you have to hire an experienced, expensive person to fix the mess. Yes, I can hear everyone now, "worst case is they burn your house down." Sure, but as we're reminded _constantly_ when we read stories about AI agent catastrophes -- a human could wipe your prod database too. wHy ArE yOu HoLdInG iT tO a DiFfErEnT sTaNdArD???

The business side of the house is getting to live that scenario out right now as far as software goes. Sure you've got years of expertise that an LLM doesn't have _yet_. What makes you think it can't replace that part of your job as well?