JacoboJacobi

Still it sounds like it would be the optimal choice for a redundancy zone in some senses since its probably not going to have any accidental dependency on us-east-1.

I think the trouble with arguments about AGI is that they presume we all have similar views and respect for thought and human intelligence, while the scale is maybe wider than most would imagine. Its also maybe a bit bias selecting to make it through academia systems with high intellectual rigor to on average have more romantic or irrational ideas about impressive human intelligence and genius. But its also quite possible to view it as a pattern matching neural networks and filtering where much of it is flawed and even the most impressive results are from pretty inconsistent minds relying on recursively flawed internal critic systems, etc.

Looking at the poem in the article I would be more inclined to call the end human written because it seemed kind of crap like I expect from an eighth grader's poem assignments, but probably this is the lower availability of examples for the particular obsessions of the requestor.

The strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.

I don't really see the influence of things like LLMs (or StackOverflow or improved search engines) as simple productivity. People do what they can with very complex value estimates and comfort levels. If they are less productive in a careful measure it may mean they are doing a lot of high value low hanging fruit across areas they were afraid to touch.

The trouble with highly productive specialists is that they produce a ton of high quality results where the demand is not really there and has to be artificially made. Even if you find enough work for them it often means the incremental cases are things you wouldn't have bothered with. A specialist branching to work slowly in related yet further related areas is a lot more value and can work with an oracle so flawed that it barely beats chance..

With juniors it is much more complex, but they have always been a useless consideration in productivity. Not having them has always been highly productive in the short term but has long term consequences.

Wouldn't it be simpler to surround the enemy in Ramstein?

Everyone is always so negative about these outages, but if we look at the details we see it was a win as long as they maintain 85% up time.

Jordan has been a key ally of the US. No one will make that mistake again.

I've seen plenty of cases of making something a target where quality won't be measurable and immediately cut off the reward or apply penalties. I don't really want Microsoft to run a large fund that encourages people to try to take over roles and request cash, etc.

Literally anyone could create a support and maintenance organization that takes MIT license projects into an AWS like split and only get paid if the support they provide remains valuable to people who pay for the value of the support and maintenance.

Sure but increased output would mean code. I don't think generating a lot of code is itself developer productivity. Some people could be using it to stop themselves from creating bad code which is developer productivity. While I find it a bit unlikely people are using it in this way (in terms of the average) I would most certainly have made this argument if code quantity was up from LLMs so I can't claim to know a quantitative measure.

I'd certainly agree that malloc is the Achilles heel of any real world C. Overall though C++ was not a particularly good solution to memory efficiency since having OO available made the situation look like a fast sprint to the cake shop.

I'd like to see a neutral productivity measure? Whether you tell me it went way up or way down I tend to be suspicious of productivity measures being neutral to perception changes that effect expectation, non paradoxical, etc.

Such claims are not cited in the article. It may be possible to write a good article on the topic but this article could just as well be on the organic uptake of the PC and how most wealthy nontechnical people adopted a need for a PC on "cons" that preceded their ability to gain more worth than trouble.

The claims being made that are cited are not really in that camp though..

It may be extremely dangerous to release. True. Even search engines had the potential to be deemed too dangerous in the nuclear pandoras box arguments of modern times. Then there are high-speed phishing opportunities, etc.

It may be an essential failure to miss the boat. True. If calculators were upgraded/produced and disseminated at modern Internet speeds someone who did accounting by hand would have been fired if they refused to learn for a few years.

Its communication builds an unhealthy relationship that is parasitic. True. But the Internet and the way content is critiqued is a source of this even if it is not intentionally added.

I don't like many people involved and I don't think they will be financially successful on merit alone given that anyone can create a LLM. But LLM technology is being sold by organic "con" that is how all technology such as calculators end up spreading for individuals to evaluate and adopt. A technology everyone is primarily brutally honest about is a technology that has died because no one bothers to check if the brutal honesty has anything to do with their own possible uses.