The Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) killed 3 people and injured 23 others across 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995

It's absolutely incredible to see this talked about as a "reasonable" position on AI taking jobs.

edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric

Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help

Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us

Just like they didn't in 1985...

In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums

The only reason to emulate human intelligence is to capture it, exploit it, and reduce the negotiating power of those who have it naturally. Anyone who wants this is not a friend of human beings

I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions

You can't capture the full range of behaviours and edge cases unless you are willing to ingest billions of events without lossiness

Metrics have limitations of cardinality. Logs need to be reduced or else you are in archive rehydration hell

There will be code paths that have never been triggered that you still need to reason about as part of analysing a system, eg in threat modelling

> I get why you think I might not have worked on large systems

I didn't, necessarily. But it looked like an excessively strong claim, combined with a challenge to the author's competence. I wanted to call that out.

> This is complete lack of experience on the authors part

Actually I'm going to turn the accusation back on yourself: if you think reasoning about a system's entire graph of behaviours from runtime traces is trivial, I don't believe you've worked on a truly complex system

The range of what a program can do is much larger than what a program does do in your two week Datadog aggregation window

- Type system is too concrete, can't express sets or unions.

- Not much support for functional programming except passing closures

- Can't express immutability. Well, there's const, but it's crippled

These things mean Go falls short of what GP wants.

But Go has very distinct and (honestly kinda weird) design goals, it isn't really supposed to be "the simple applications language". It's supposed to be "C with NewSqueak", very much a systems programming language. You see that in its aggressively concrete type system

Codeberg wants to protect their hosting from the large volume of AI projects.

What do you think the right solution is here?

> I think you're being dishonest in your framing

Asking without malice: why are you telling me this?

This is an open internet forum. You can suspect my sincerity but also, I can suspect yours.

Neither of us can ever prove we mean what we say. We just have to muddle on and ignore anything we think is trolling

Why do the very vocal "AI people" online have this thing where they are simultaneously:

- proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity;

- responding to any negative reaction like they are almost like a persecuted group

It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics?

Let them have their corner of the internet. There are plenty of other sites that will host your project.

Perhaps if you are a heavy codeberg user it is annoying to move onto Forgejo. I get that. But ultimately Codeberg has the right to decide these things

The issue being, gratification is rarely a good guideline. It just means collapsing the gap between doing the thing and the idea of having done the thing. But that gap is where you actually learn things

It does seem to be happening - at least in mobile app stores.

There's some recent analysis that demonstrates how, despite a huge updraft in the quantity of apps released, the aggregate count of reviews and downloads remains static.

In other words, there are now many more apps. But not many (or really any?) more users

Take a look at p40 / figure 12 of "WRITING CODE VS. SHIPPING CODE: PRODUCTIVITY EFFECTS ACROSS GENERATIONS OF AI CODING TOOLS" (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35275/w352...)

Their analysis is on pg42-43

> they should be clear about why this time is different to the entire history of the computer industry so far

I can't prove the pie is fixed, but nor can you prove the pie is infinite.

Maybe this comes close to sounding patronising, but I think the key thing people miss, when talking about economic growth of software is, money has to come from somewhere. Someone has to give it to you. So it you want to keep growing, you need someone who isn't paying for software, to start. Who are these people, how much money do they have, and what other costs are you competing against?

When clients come to you, is that because they always intended to get help taking their system to production? Or is it a last resort after all the AI approaches fail?

Is there a general way that these projects break down? Or are the failures usually subtle?

His work is very flimsy, and I have been a hater for close to 10 years [1].

I think Bregman skirts close to the "Effective Altruism" movement and his work has similar problems of choosing flashy, exciting, elitist projects over boring, uncomfortable, policy changes.

His enamourment with "AI!!!" (exclamations mandatory) is par for the course. Basically a fantasy that if AI leads to enough layoffs, the rest of society will accept a transition to UBI (against their own interests)

Bregman has been going on about UBI for decades and I've never seen him do the actual maths. In Utopia for Realists he argued the budget deficit can be completely made up by the cost savings of having fewer benefit systems. It's fantasy

[1] https://www.breck-mckye.com/review-utopia-for-realists-rutge...