mikkupikku

You really do have a hard time responding to what people actually said.

Maybe because people are using claude to to write code for themselves, to scratch their own itch, and upload it to the world just because. The value of code can't be measured in star counts.

Bug Bankruptcy.

They absolutely were. The parallels are stark.

He's saying that Marvin Minsk might not have known that he was on pedo entrapment island and may have assumed a teenage girl was of age. Telling the entrapment targets the deal up front wouldn't be very smart. This is not blaming the girls, it was Epstein's setup.

It's a difference in values, not understanding. I understand that AI burns tons of power, and I don't care. Drew understands it the same as I, but he does care. The difference is in what people value, and relative to what.

It takes most people years of burying their heads in a computer to become effective programmers of anything more than trivial software. This is rapidly changing.

> I guess in the sense of lowering the barrier to creating stuff.

That is the sense which I think most important. There are millions upon millions of very bright people with lots of valuable domain experience in a massive variety of specialities other than computer programming, who will now be able to use their expertise to guide the creation of software which before would have taken them many years of study, or millions of dollars to hire programmers. Empowering people to create their own tools will be a massive boon to humanity.

I've long had great respect for Drew, way since way back when he was sircmpwn writing cool calculator software. Great programmer, and an incredibly based individual. Stays true to himself even in the face of overwhelming pressure.

I completely disagree with his take on this; battleship vibecoder in vimscript is awesome and important, socially, because vibe coding makes computer programming accessible to the masses. I don't expect him to ever agree, but much respect nonetheless

I have a systematic way of approaching this kind of situation, where you have to rapidly estimate a thing, commit to the estimate and are judged by the quality of your estimates in the long run; my approach is to first make a guess based off my gut, and then to pause and make a bet with myself, did I guess high or low? If my gut then says that my first gut instinct was too high or low, I adjust from there. I can't guess great the first time, but this two-stage guessing works a lot better for me.

I'm sure I'm not the first to use this technique, but I don't know what it's called.

*Tank wash

There's a component of modern culture that trains and expects people to be extremely pessimistic about long term human development. It results in situations above, where without any further information people just assume by default that were going to run out of a thing and are on some collision course with not just a disaster, but every single conceivable one.

(Gallium is a byproduct of aluminum production. We aren't going to run out.)

When push came to shove, it turns out nobody really cared about the Turing test and immediately found excuses to discount it as soon as machines blew through that goalpost. It's fundamentally theological, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. It has no impact on what the machines can demonstrably do.

What's the problem? Wine can handle that fine. Heroic launcher showed that you can easily make an Epic store wrapper and launcher work on Linux.

It's a glorified wrapper around curl, wine and a webview, a few interns could knock this out in a few months. For "3% market share" (growing every day, thanks to Valve) its a no brainer, but Sweeney has no brain.

They could at the very least just package it up to run with Wine, but Sweeney is stubbornly set in his linux hating ways. I could use their store through the Heroic launcher, as I do with GoG, but I won't because fuck you Tim.

Smart people can hit the ground running if they're freed from the need to first learn the intricacies of a new language. We're going to see an explosion in the number of people writing software as clever people who invested their time in something other than learning to program are now able to write software for themselves.

Your threshold for "resemble" is obviously quite high, which is fair, but assuming that you're an encultured programmer your python code represents other people's python code. It might be doing something novel, but that thing it's doing is interacting or in response to, or otherwise relative to existing concepts you learned or saw elsewhere. All art is derivative, we can do things other people haven't done before but all of it derives from the works of others in some way.

Anyway, I've coded all kinds of wacky shit with claude that I guarantee nobody has implemented before, if only because they're stupid and tedious ideas. They can't all be winners, but they were novel, and yet claude code implemented them as confidently as if they were yet another note taking app. They have no problem handling novel ideas, and although the novel ideas in this case were my own, its easy to see how finding new ideas could be automated by exploring the combinatorial space of existing ideas.

The "if only one nuke gets through, you lose and the whole thing is pointless" is completely wrong. Even if surrender were mandatory after one nuke, all the other intercepted nukes would be thousands if not millions of lives saved.

I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. One guy expressed his belief about how the future will play out, and another disagreed. Time will be the judge of it, not either of us.

AIs code switching between human languages is cyberpunk AF.

> country which once exploited an attack vector is now trying to protect itself on that vector

I have no doubt that American efforts at security on this front are inadaquate, incompetent, etc. But hypocritical? Nah.

Agreed. We should be asking what the machines measurably can or can't do. If it can't be measured, then it doesn't matter from an engineering standpoint. Does it have a soul? Can't measure it, so it doesn't matter.

We won't know if his assumption is false until time passes and moves future speculation into the empirical present.

Better put than I could have.

Logical fallacies are vastly overrated. Unless the conversation is formal logic in the first place, "logical fallacies" are just a way to apply quick pattern matching to dismiss people without spending time on more substantive responses. In this case, both you and the other are speculating about the near future of a thing, neither of you knows.

Truly novel? All art is derivative.

Why you got to pick an asian woman as your example though?

The Arab allies (aka client states) thought they had a lot more influence over America than they really do; it just happened that a lot of their asks aligned with Israel's asks. When push comes to shove and America has to choose between satisfying Israeli interests or the Arab states, not both at the same time, they're going to become disappointed. Both want Iran dealt with, but I think the tension will reach a breaking point over what the final result is meant to be. Israel would love for Iran to be a failed state like Somalia, as mentioned above, with a power vacuum they can fill and huge amounts of refugees streaming out and destabilizing their neighbors. The Arab states obviously don't want that, they want Iran stabilized with a compliant predictable government. There is approximately a zero percent chance of that happening, so they're going to be sorely disappointed.

My take as well. Furthermore, most innovations come relatively shortly after their technological prerequisites have been met, so that suggests the "novelty space" that humans generally explore is a relatively narrow band around the current frontier. Just as humans can search through this space, so too should machines be capable of it. It's not an infinitely unbounded search which humans are guided through by some manner of mystic soul or other supernatural forces.