infamouscow

I don't think there will be any bailouts for these AI companies. There's no political will to do so in both parties. The grizzly alternative is a DeFlock movement, but instead of cutting down poles, it will be people's heads.

I could see someone sadly taking their own life over this.

The charge-back penalties are going to be hilarious and hopefully bankrupting.

How does this relate to TFA or GP's reply?

This is easily solved by paying homeless people to destroy the devices.

For languages, I'd say Gleam and OxCaml are going to become more and more popular on here. Not sure what else.

In the industry, Ruby often (but not always) pairs with Rails. Ruby+Rails exists in a sweet spot of making most of the mundane bullshit of writing software vanish, you spend 80% of your time thinking about your business problem, and that was before LLMs. With LLMs, you can get a lot done.

It wouldn't surprise me if AI economics act as a forcing function for more Ruby adoption.

Pointing out hypocrisy is a losing strategy in politics.

I implore you to continue with this strategy.

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes—Dijkstra

Gavin Newsom should take a page from all the LinkedIn CEOs and force Claude down everyones throats or be dismissed.

I don't live in California, but speeding up the government with AI would be something that solidifies Newsom's 2028 presidential campaign. He can position himself as having resolved the concerns about AI taking jobs, and still be viewed as innovative and forward-thinking. It also gives him a cover for past mismanagement by reframing those problems as finally being within grasp with AI.

My guillotine & rope startup is going to make a killing (no pun intended).

This is not true. It is fast as a general purpose hash table, but claiming it's the fastest across all datasets and workloads is silly.

The government is not going to enforce this, the game theory does not work in their favor.

The SCOTUS has made it exceptionally clear mathematics and software are protected by the First Amendment. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 tries to make a very narrow exception for nuclear weapons, but

1. The law has never been challenged in court for being unconstitutional, and

2. It doesn't apply to model weights

Any attempt by the government to suppress open models will meet legal challenges on the grounds of (1) or (2).

Congress could amend the act to include model weights, but that won't prevent legal challenges on the grounds of it being unconstitutional (which it is).

In service to the point, if you're _really_ smart—like definitely going to grad school smart—you apply to universities with the best faculty for your intended area of study. Often that is a sole professor at a university you've never heard of, but the researchers in that area of study regard as a top school.

If it's been 10+ years and an employer wants your SAT scores, 1600 is as good an answer as any. Anyone asking for that data point doesn't actually care about the accuracy, they just want to see if you'll compliantly jump through a pointless hoop.

(Save the "but that's fraud!" replies. It's not material to the job, so it isn't).

The fiber cut was done by AI.

The default garbage collection tunables are also from 30 years ago. Adding the GCMH (Garbage Collector Magic Hack) package resolves much of the slowdown, and native compilation covers the remaining gap quite nicely.

It's only fraud if a person signed their name stating such.

Their name being attached to the commit is itself, irrelevant, as their is no way to submit a patch otherwise. You could use a fake name, but you're just moving this fraud problem around.

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that using a tool constitutes fraud. Frankly, it's silly, if not genuinely stupid.

Film photographers in the early 2000s routinely called digital "not real photography" and Photoshop "cheating" because you could delete bad shots and fix everything later. Traditional musicians and critics dismissed drum machines, synthesizers, and autotune as soulless tools.

> In the US we have a problem that a lot of seniors can't afford to retire.

Gen Z and majority of millennials are completely unsympathetic to this problem.

From their perspective, older generations have actively hindered their careers and financial opportunities to the point where they know they'll have to work their entire lives. They also know the US is marching towards financial calamity when Medicare becomes insolvent in the early 2030s, and don't anticipate Medicare or Social Security to exist when they're older.

On the bright side, my guillotine & rope startup is going to make a killing (no pun intended).

For most people, they will use the models included in iOS and Android on their phone.

When all these datacenter projects halt (as is their trajectory), at some point someone is going to ask about what to do with the unused GPUs. Those will probably sell to bitcoin miners or other new AI companies that know how to use exotic sources of power, though at smaller scales.

This is still very legal in Texas (provided it's at night).

Knowing that you can be killed is a very powerful deterrent for most criminals.

I've only been slightly joking about starting a company that sells rope and guillotines.

There are carve-outs to allow for governments to make exceptions, but it's besides the point.

If the government were to hold themselves to account, they would fine themselves some amount N, and pay itself N using your taxes. It also wastes other finite resources for all the paperwork and legal action involved that could be used for something else.

Speaking pragmatically, there's no point trying to hold the government itself to it's own laws. The only time citizens do hold the government accountable, it's always done in the form of hangings, or the guillotine in France's case.

I'm pretty confident Big AI have robust filtering to prevent answering these questions. You don't have to spell it out.

The problem is bad actors (i.e, power hungry sociopaths) have convinced the public that it's reasonable to assert liability claims on you simply because you have some intangible association to someone that committed a crime. This shows up in things like KYC laws making it impossible for certain kinds of legal businesses to use the banking system. It also shows up when states use the courts to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with legally manufactured items.

We should expect to see companies pursuing legal action against Big AI for their own security blunders. Presumably, at some future point we will see the capabilities of Mythos as commonplace (otherwise they're tacitly admitted to intractable scaling limitations). It will be easy for lawyers to make the same argument that Big AI is just as liable as a bank or gun manufacturer for the actions of its customers.

DAs can refuse to prosecute.

But even if the DA prosecutes, the jury can nullify the charges, which is a risk. What happens when a jury finds the accused not guilty?

The masses will only tolerate so much before the elite start dying. See all of human history.

An election is two (or more) armies going to the ballot box to see who has more numbers. Nothing more.

Is there a Polymarket for when the first AI data center is burned to the ground?

As we've discovering with the Epstein releases, Ted Kaczynski was ahead of his time (w.r.t. David Gelernter).

If sufficient numbers of the population perceive to have lost their livelihoods due to AI, then I'd expect to see data centers burned to the ground and a lot of people swinging from lamp posts. Jury nullification solves the rest, but even that that assumes you can even find an impartial jury.