_heimdall

Which ones? The often made claim is that LLMs, or maybe some other architecture for AI, will be better than humans at most/all cognitive jobs. Why would one hire a human instead?

What specific wins do you have in mind? Are you leaning on globalization in general? Or products that spun out of war technology like herbicides and pesticides?

For any seamstress that didn't have other economically valuable skills they were able to pivot to, their world did kind of end.

If LLMs can replace most humans at most cognitive tasks, what do those working in various cognitive jobs pivot to?

Nobody has a moat, but everyone is f*&$ed. Competitors do seem to leapfrog each other, but each step is getting closer to beating humans at most tasks. Once that happens, that do we do?

Is that specific to Linux? For better or worse, I have felt like it'd fairly good at working through most tech stacks I throw at it.

I have a client app on a very old (for the JS world) version of eleventy using NetlifyCMS (also outdated). Claude has quite easily picked that up to add features to it along the way.

I feel like a broken record, but I still don't get the point of MCP. Is this really just another attempt at undoing the mistake of abandoning actual REST APIs?

Sure, then we just need to ensure that any forward fighting force has reliable access to Adderall. Seems reasonable for modern warfare, after all it seems like the Nazis may have been delivering heroine to their front lines.

I can't imagine the military wants a fighting force dependent on a consistent supply of GLP-1s to the front lines.

Ironically that GLP-1 blocker prescription would potentially make you ineligible. You have to take that pill for the rest of your life, and the military generally doesn't want to deploy combat troops dependent on a consistent supply of non-life saving medications.

I really have no idea how we (the US) would stand up a meaningful sized army today if a larger war were to break out. Between obesity and the widespread use of psychological medications a huge swath of the population is ineligible to serve.

The main challenge I have with living in densely populated areas these days is how fragile they are. Any disruption to power, water, fuel, food, etc and the I don't know what people in a dense area will do.

If the trade off is moving from transferring money from my boss to my landlord or from my boss to the dozens of systems I deeply depend on to live, I don't see too much difference there.

I must have misread your comment orisunderstood. Where did you say that in this chain of comments?

Are you saying that's a good thing?

Are you saying said murder was justified and shouldn't be punish? Or even that it should be celebrated?

I was never arguing that the US didn't bomb a school and kill well over 100 children. I agree theres no arguing that, but that also wasn't the point of this thread.

You'd really have to define "better" there.

I'm American and also spent a few years living in Europe. I actually much preferred the smaller homes and more walkable cities in Europe, I don't need a McMansion to feel happy.

We moved back primarily because immigration laws are always tricky, our families were still in the US, and I didn't want to watch Russia invade Ukraine from a front row seat. If the decision were only about cost and lifestyle of home and city design we would still be in Europe.

> America artificially created a dependency on the car with its city design, for economic reasons.

That's nonsense. Most American cities were built after automobiles were already a thing, that's why our cities are designed around automobile transportation. Many European cities are much older than cars, of course they were laid out based on the transportation of the day.

And I don't get your dig at the end related to American city design being some for economic reasons. What city wasn't design in part for economic reasons? Homes, businesses, roads, etc are always positioned in a city in part based on economic impact and value.

What so you mean by ventilated here?

Forgive my ignorance, I just don't get the reference and don't want to assume its anything front he pandemic response to United Healthcare.

You made some pretty serious claims to be waived off later as being pretty emotional though. I wasn't simply pointing it that chatbots == LLMs, your comment seemed to almost condemn the US specifically for the state of things as you see them today.

Consider the amount of debt they have piled up. If you don't believe your company can lice up to said debt or the current valuation, and if you do believe fear can lead to government capture that would protect your company from said liabilities, fiduciary liability would incentivize you to push the extinction risk narrative.

Said CEOs are horribly biased, they have fiduciary responsibilities that make them useless judges on the relative risk/reward balance of LLMs and AI, if we get there.

That doesn't track. Sex trafficking is already a crime, preventing the parties involved from getting a marriage license won't stop it.

Also its interesting that you are only concerned when the under 18 individual is a girl.

Japan knew this one as well. Their future would have been much different if it was the USSR in charge of the pacific after the war finally ended.

Yes, though if you are referring to the Nuremberg Trials its not a great example. A huge number of Germans were aware of, complicit in, or directly involved in genocide...the trials had 24 defendants.

How were they held accountable? Or are you referring to millions of soldiers they threw into the meat grinder or were shot BT their own officers?

Why not? The age of 18 is an arbitrary cultural norm, I'd ask why the state has to step in and enforce it as opposed to letting the parent or legal guardian decide.

Why western armies specifically? What countries have a history of actually holding their military to legal account for their actions?

Not all AI are chatbots, and more accurately the tools used here likely fall under the ML umbrella (as should LLMs in my opinion).

Would you hold that same line for individuals that built weapons, planes, bombs, etc in past wars?

Companies that make bombs aren't forced to (usually), and they also know there's only really one use for a bomb.

Jury trials definitely have their flaws, but what would you propose as a better approach?