howunfortunate

Shallow dismissal.

Please consider that this family story likely motivates OP's worldview and projects, rather than the other way around.

Not saying I agree with it, but that makes some sort of sense from a certain perspective. If their goal is to get international governments to intervene and regulate everyone, then it's better to set off small nuclear bombs rather than wait until we have planet-killers.

Is it so hard to imagine they just believe what they are saying?

15 years ago, if you asked 100 people in tech to define "artificial general intelligence", 90 of them would have come up with a standard that LLMs today easily clear.

Now that we're here I think we can have a much clearer vision, and we can notice limitations that we couldn't have articulated before.

But I'm starting to notice more "polarization" around this topic and it's weird. We're in a new era and I think no one knows the future, a lot of different beliefs are reasonable.

> Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.

It doesn't need to be.

"No one can ever build any new developments" is also a very negative situation for everyone.*

The goal is to balance these tradeoffs, and it can't just be sunshine and roses for everyone all the time.

*It's also basically our present situation, which is why housing is so absurdly expensive.

I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation...

It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction.

It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this.

Makes sense to me.

If you don't want to pay the taxes, thanks to Disneyland you can now sell your land for a nice fat gain, buy cheaper land elsewhere, and pocket the difference. And whoever bought your land will likely use it for the social good (maybe build a hotel or something).

> A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free

I like the thought, but the challenge in most places is that the poor are already paying massive "negative tax" in the form of various social subsidies.

So if you add tax exemptions on top of it, it becomes increasingly impractical to raise enough taxes.

And no, it can't be done simply by taxing the rich more. That should be done too, in my view! But the math is simply such that we need a pretty broad tax base to support our spending.

At least most medications and interventions have to go through RCTs and tend to be quite standardized.

Don't even get me started with mental health therapy...

> Splitting Meta would have a very low effect on the economy

That's...I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect. The scale would be historic.

> it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.

I fully agree with you! OP apparently doesn't, as he stated he does not care about half of the voices in that debate. That's what I'm taking issue with, not the proposal to break up Meta, which is, as you said, worth a debate!

> decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios

Any decision that results in a long term net loss across the entire public economy? Yes.

That's something that hurts a lot of people and that hurt should be carefully weighed against whatever the assumed benefit is. Sometimes that's worth it, sometimes it's not

But it's never OK to just hand wave with "well I don't care about that class of people so screw them"

And let's not move the goalposts. OPs proposal was a corporate breakup of massive scale, not a minimum lumens requirement.

> I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.

"I have no empathy for the two-thirds of Americans who will lose their personal savings that they need to retire" really undermines your case.

Edit: thoughtful tradeoffs against the stock market are reasonable. "I don't care" is not a carefully weighed tradeoff

As one obvious example, evolution is not agentic but still answers "why" questions.

"Why do we have a heart" "Why do we sweat", etc.

But Chesterton's fence is often used in an even MORE generalized way than just that, not "why is it there" but "what are we not seeing about how this connects to everything else"

As an example, eradicating mosquitos. We see many obvious reasons why it might be good, we can even see that they don't seem that important in the food chain, but it would be hubris to assume we understand every potential connection they have to world ecology.

> Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence

It most certainly does not.

Journal articles are usually behind a paywall. Preprints are a fully open workaround allowed by most journals.

> Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.

Sure but if you look at the authors names and see they have 50 other published papers, you can get a rough idea that it's probably equivalently good to their other work.

Until you've done it yourself, it's hard to grok just how bad the peer review process is. It's like...5% better than nothing.

Honestly you could argue peer review is worse than nothing, as it also filters out actually quality work that violates some dogma of the field.

The key word is "new".

The industrial revolution wiped out like 90% of human labor as it was imagined at the time, but it nearly fully replaced it with new forms of employment.

There are a lot of unknowns with what this would look like with AI.

This same argument is easily dismissed by most because it boils down to "why not dig with spoons?"

It only becomes compelling to me if you believe in true AGI/ASI, at which point all human labor becomes irrelevant, and then we have something quite new to think about.

But simply "it automates away a small portion of jobs" is not compelling.

A Scandinavian economist reportedly said to Milton Friedman:

“In Scandinavia, we have no poverty.”

Friedman replied:

“That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.”

> design

I force OpenAI models to use image generation for design, then an iteration loop until it matches the image gen.

This is frustratingly manual and takes many more repetitions compared to Claude (and especially Claude Design) which "just work", but it's a big step change over the default.

I am trying. The main issue is it would be extremely annoying for the juniors, who have work to get done, and prefer to throw problems at Claude rather than ask me questions.

In general, I believe learning usually needs to be driven by the learner.

Yes, a huge range of possibilities exist. Including that the valuations are exactly accurate, or even too low.

I think the quote above is best as written, with a big emphasis on the "if"

Do you figure?

I'm pretty AGI-pilled, and I feel perfectly emotionally prepared for if AI stayed at its current capabilities and the S&P dropped 25%.

I think it was Roon who said it months ago: "Too many people are not emotionally prepared for if it's not a bubble."

We're in the era of centaur chess.

Those with 20 years of experience are crushing it.

My worry is not about us. The worry is about the kids. I'm tech lead. I don't think the juniors at my company are learning anything from me. I'm not certain they're learning anything about _software_. Idk, I could be wrong. We barely talk because everyone has become so siloed.

Be fair to Socrates though.

We have significantly degraded in our ability to memorize e.g. epic poems or preserve oral traditions since the advent of writing.

I know that sounds trite in retrospect, given the benefits, and that's half the point. But there are real tradeoffs too! For example, culture has a LOT more generation-to-generation turnover as a result of literacy being common, making it unstable.

I don't agree.

Sometimes Claude's problem, such as when I ask it to summarize a long, complex session back to me, is it's too information dense. It uses weird invented terms to gloss over complex parts of the architecture instead of explaining them.

But no matter what - too dense or too sparse - it always sounds like Claude.

> for “re-migration” in europe, also known as the forceful ethnic cleansing of non-white immigrants.

I'm curious if you feel the same about re-migration of Belgians from the Congo?

Personally I think it's fine for any country to vote to control immigration as they see fit. I think Japan is a good example of a relatively xenophobic culture that deals with this fairly and thoughtfully.

> If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world"

I don't.

There are a lot of counterfactuals we can observe empirically.

I'm just saying there is no empirical evidence to support the marketing strategy of "tell people our product is going to kill their families". I believe this is the first time it's been tried out.

Not OP, but in my case they are features we already provide that we can make cheaper (for ourselves) by doing it on the user's device rather than paying OpenAI for it.

Lots of use cases. Image understanding / labeling is what I had in mind.

But also voice-to-text, (certain kinds of) search, document summarization, are common things that I could see many apps using Apple Intelligence for.

It's pretty nice from an app developers perspective.

It allows me to save money by calling a model on the users device rather than spending tokens (or forcing the user to spend tokens).