RataNova

I like explanations like this because they make biology feel much less arbitrary

I think the paralegal analogy is right, but with one important difference: a human paralegal usually knows when they are unsure, or at least can be trained to flag uncertainty

I think that's the right intuition. Legal AI feels especially dangerous because the output can look competent while hiding jurisdiction-specific footguns

This is exactly why I'd be cautious about interpreting the preference metric too strongly

Agreed. The study might show something useful, but the headline is doing a lot of work.

I'd read this less as "AI replaces law professors" and more as "AI may be a surprisingly strong first-pass tutor, especially when the student knows enough to question it"

The arcologies are such a perfect example of what these games did well

There's something wonderful about this kind of PC game preservation

Solar Roof made sense when panels were seen as something to disguise

I think the pattern is less "Tesla can't invent anymore" and more that the company seems much worse at turning ambitious concepts into mature, supported products

And this is probably the core issue. Solar Roof was trying to be a roofing product, an energy product, and a design product all at once

Yeah, and the problem is that the premium isn't small enough to hand-wave away as aesthetics

I don't think the failure is that integrated solar tiles are impossible. It's that Tesla seemed to underestimate how much of this business is execution, service and long-term support rather than just product design

I agree phages are probably part of the answer

Medicine has always borrowed from biology's more dangerous toolkit

Nature is probably still one of the best drug discovery libraries we have

The path of least resistance usually wins, especially when the pricing hides the real cost

That's a fair concern, but I'd separate training from inference here

The biggest impact of local models may simply be that they prevent remote inference from becoming the only game in town

I mostly agree, though I think local AI will need better UX around failure modes. Cloud models are often used not just because developers are lazy, but because they are more capable and easier to support consistently across devices.

The phone in your pocket did not necessarily destroy that. What changed more was the disappearance of legible ownership and locality

The old web was not necessarily better in every way but it had a clearer boundary: you sat down, went online, did something and then left

The risk is that if companies stop training humans to make those calls, the automated judge becomes unquestionable rather than useful

There is a difference between understanding the shape of a solution and keeping the "finger memory" of a language alive

The danger is not using a tool. We all use tools... The danger is skipping the part where your own brain builds a model of the problem

That's true in theory, but I think the hard part is timing

AI is almost a distraction from the older pattern: management discovers a way to make the spreadsheet look better this quarter and the hidden cost only shows up years later

The worrying scenario is not that AI writes code. It's that companies stop creating the people who can tell whether the code is any good.

AI might shake things up, but I wonder if instead of "going back," it'll just blur the lines

It's nice to hear someone who's been on both sides still hold onto that appreciation