djeastm

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

But as we all know in context Franklin was talking about the Penn family wanting to literally purchase temporary safety from native American raids privately (rather than being taxed) and weakening the ability of the PA General Assembly to govern.

I'm guessing he'd probably be pro privacy, though.

That's if everyone were acting perfectly rationally, but a world in which those three companies go bankrupt would have everyone panic selling every equity possible like it's the endtimes.

Dumb question here, but would it necessarily mean the other stocks they might've bought (i.e. the rest of the market) will not get the cash infusion and will thus likely drop in valuation?

>I think we need to completely reset our expectations of how the market works.

Is this not just "It's different this time" thinking? I remember it being used all the time during the dotcom boom

Funny you should say that. This is about Stanford:

>In our tech-enabled, newly A.I.-powered world, students were increasingly fudging just about everything. They would embezzle dorm funds to spend on their friends and lie about having Covid to get the UberEats credits that the school offered to those in quarantine. Some kids I knew published a paper that claimed a groundbreaking new A.I. advancement. Online sleuths quickly pointed out that it appeared to be just a stolen Chinese model, to which the two Stanford co-authors responded by blaming the plagiarism on the third author.

>In junior year, 49 percent of the 849 computer science majors who responded to an annual campus survey said they would rather cheat on an exam than fail. A friend of mine captured the school’s ethos while we were discussing the tech hardware and other items our student club neglected to return to corporate sponsors. It was all, I recall her saying, “just a little bit of fraud.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/17/opinion/chatgpt-ai-colleg...

Did you know Theo Baker? He's got a book out about Stanford that says differently.

>Cheating has become omnipresent. I don’t know a single person who hasn’t used A.I. to get through some assignment in college, yet the school was at first slow to realize how widespread this would become. As freshman year went on, some professors suggested that the “nuclear option” might be called for: allowing faculty to proctor in-person exams, a practice banned at the university for over a century to demonstrate “confidence in the honor” of students.

snip

>In junior year, 49 percent of the 849 computer science majors who responded to an annual campus survey said they would rather cheat on an exam than fail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/17/opinion/chatgpt-ai-colleg...

I urge you to learn the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: https://joslin.org/news-stories/all-news-stories/education/2...

My family is unfortunately rife with Type 1. Even appearing later in life with no connection to diet/activity. It's a genetic problem.

I empathize with people with Type 2, but it's a different disease.

If you can find a positive AI story to submit I'll upvote it

52-62 seems like a normal, or better than normal, retirement target, no?

>barbarians

I didn't realize people still used this word to apply to human beings.

>primary resources are effectively infinite

You just solved economics?

Ehhh, their incentive in their marketing is to get normal people to not be intimidated by the big bad AI.

Power users are always going to have to take the messaging companies send out to the masses with a grain of salt.

They provide an explanation for using the term "sleep":

> In animals, the transfer from short-term memory to long-term memory is thought to be supported by hippocampal replay [33], especially during sleep [41]; in this phase, short-term hippocampal memories are reactivated and consolidated into cortical synaptic weights. Sleep makes animals unable to respond to external stimuli, suggesting that it must provide enough cognitive benefit to justify this cost [41]. Inspired by these biological processes, we propose a method for transferring context-window memory into persistent weights. When the model’s context window becomes full during inference, the model enters a “sleep” in which it performs multiple forward passes over the accumulated context and recursively updates its fast weights via a learned local rule. As in animal sleep, the model receives no external input tokens during this phase. After consolidation, the context window is cleared, and the model resumes operation with updated fast weights. During training, the model is optimized end-to-end by backpropagating through the entire process to maximize task performance after sleep.

In a mathematical model of collective intelligence I think we need to also include a "productive use" factor. The total brain power of our species might be higher than in the past based on a summation, but how much per-capita intelligence is being utilized for productive/adaptive ends versus being being distracted from such ends? What's our distraction rate offset?

From the article:

>This principle is fundamentally different from the effect of dimples on golf balls. Dimples reduce pressure resistance by intentionally turbulizing the airflow and suppressing backward separation. DMR, on the other hand, delays the transition, thereby suppressing not pressure resistance but the wall friction itself. They are opposite mechanisms.

Relevant article posted on HN about this a few days ago: https://davidoks.blog/p/ai-is-killing-the-cheap-smartphone

>it was already downvote bombed in less than 10 minutes with no counter argument

Your submissions to HN evince a pattern that suggests engagement with you would likely fall on deaf ears.

IIRC, he spends a few pages talking about how Steve Jobs is going to be the ruin of Apple

SpaceX probably spends a lot of money on marketing/public relations creating great media. I'm guessing NASA's on a shoestring budget for that kind of thing.

>I think the only real case to be made is that AI's sense of immediate pleasure can neuter people away from running into friction. AI natives likely won't understand friction and question it.

This is key, I think, and gets overshadowed by people being offended by seeing bad vibecode or claims of 10x speeds, etc.

The most important learning that happens is not when we ask and get the answer to our question right away. It's when we stretch ourselves to seek out the answer, fail a few times, think deeply, then perhaps after a nap, solve the problem. That kind of knowledge is priceless because it not only gets you an answer it gets you some errant paths you can use to avoid problems in future problem solving as well as getting you increased trust in your own thinking.

If the next generations skip this step, they'll always think answers are supposed to be easy to find and will find themselves more and more dependent on AI and less and less confident in their own brains.

I'd be interested in hearing your experiences. Are we talking mob association? Arm-breaking thugs?

As long as they're behind a wall that AI bots can't reach and suck all of the authoritative information out and then starve of visitors.

Isn't that a Woody Allen joke?

Looking at token usage at places like OpenRouter as a proxy for overall production we're looking at exponential growth in AI-created content. Weekly token usage there has tripled just in the past 3 months.

Maybe the pelican has something heavy in its mouth.

I think there will always be a free tier that they'll be willing to use. Even if it sounds hackneyed, those folks will still use it because many people are not discerning readers anyway.

Help the younger generations find the same fun you did. That's where satisfaction is often found as we age.

As long as it's under the budget for X number of senior software devs, it seems competitive.

Maybe the professional devs, but not the vibecoders

>as far as we can see

If only there were a way to see more of Scott's thoughts on the subject of AI..