pear01

Let's also not forget a lot of the market edge of SWEs comes in knowing how to navigate these parts. The fact you needed to be reasonably fluent in a language was already a barrier to entry which meant in better times new grads could earn six figures at their first job just for putting in that effort.

Maybe you will still be needed. That is one question. How well you will be paid and treated when the barrier to entry is now "I can think" is another. As the parent indicates, most people doing software are not doing things akin to pure math. I don't think most SWEs want that lifestyle anyway.

It's ok. You shouldn't fight the coming change. Instead use the time we still have to fight for more equal outcomes (vote for politicians that support UBI, Medicare for all). The longer you delude yourself that you are uniquely needed in an increasingly mechanized world the worse all our outcomes will be.

Qualified immunity is a stain on American jurisprudence and an insult to the idea of America as a free society.

Demand of people who want your vote in the coming elections that they support a legislative correction to this judicial activism. This country was founded in large part because 250 years ago the British sent soldiers into American cities and American homes, with powers to detain, arrest and deprive of life and liberty with no accountability. If a colonial was wrongly treated they would force adjudication in favorable courts back in Britain, effectively making their soldiers immune from accountability.

The fact our judicial system has saw fit to independently replicate this injustice that none of us voted for is a crime against the very notion of what it means to be an American. Hold your leaders accountable.

Don't use your laptop. Or your phone. It's owned by a corporation.

Do you hear yourself? If you don't want to rely on corporations go live in the woods.

It's an adversarial economy. Using a LLM at work doesn't mean the work is challenging. A lot of jobs are "bullshit jobs". People are using LLMs because it gives them back time. If they don't use it their colleague will and make them look bad.

Company might fire you tomorrow. Fundamentally if a LLM can do the job it's not just employees at risk, it is also the company. There is a lot of symmetry actually with how companies delegate to employees to how employees delegate to LLMs. You can follow the logic to conclude a lot of companies are then bullshit companies. This is not a problem for the individual to solve. Your job at work is akin to the company's - earn the best return while you still can. Wasting your time for the essentially the same output at a slower pace is a bad return.

When people get laid off en masse this incentive structure will have to be altered. But telling an individual to ignore their basic economic incentives until then is unlikely to work.

They will never release them. The distraction will morph into all the electoral subterfuge they will attempt as they increasingly fear losing power at the polls. They know what's in those files and what will happen to them if they lose in 2028. Thus they will be even more incentivized to behave badly.

If gas prices double from here it will be less stupid distraction and more overt authoritarianism... the ICE question has not been settled. ICE is still violating your neighbors and making a mockery of what is supposed to be a society of free people. They merely thought the overt city takeovers and shooting Americans in the head had become a bad look that wasn't worth it politically. The persistence of this calculus is not inevitable.

It may be a bad idea (for various reasons), but it is one already being floated. Here is a press release just today from a California congressman who is proposing a bill to this effect.

https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congre...

If you agree with the parent that Americans are going to feel more energy market pain in the coming months I would imagine the pressure for this will only increase.

In such a situation - especially heading into the midterms - an export ban may be increasingly probable.

My comment was unclear. That quote was intended to connect with the parent claim that Polymarket was unique in "trying to dodge US federal regulations". The chain was:

> I don't get it. Most companies registered in the state I live in, for example, are not actually located here. They simply receive mail through their registered agent there. Why would this be news?

>> On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations.

What I found dubious was predicated on this "on the other hand" - that is the notion that Polymarket is really doing anything unique re its dealings with US federal regulators.

As per your last paragraph that touches on this, I already addressed this in another thread, but I'm simply not convinced that Polymarket is very unique here. It is common for new enterprises creating new industries to come into conflict with the law, and for both to evolve. Obviously Polymarket is not some large incumbent. The point was I find the notion that they are doing something singularly illegal or out of step with how most businesses operate dubious.

I detect that in comments around this chain you and some others seem to want to create a hard barrier between the law and enterprise. That's not how reality works. Regulations change. Policies are modified. New laws are passed. Governments and businesses often collaborate in this process. To get back to what I was trying to respond to, I am simply asserting that indeed this should really not be "big news".

Because it's not illegal to be a "douchebag". I don't believe in mob rule. You proudly declare things illegal with all the confidence of someone who has never been a victim of the state's power. You must have a rather shallow view of history. I find your mild histrionics deeply unimpressive. Why do you insist on appropriating the language of law when you clearly have little respect for its precepts?

You may feel that way, and I may sympathize. But I really think you are over-indexing on your own personal belief that they are "bad for the country". If we follow your logic then a company is doing more _dodging_ simply on the basis of one's own moral aversion. So maybe if I'm an environmentalist I think coal companies are especially dodgy. If I'm a pacifist maybe a defense contractor. If I'm an evangelical maybe a company that contracts with the government re some reproductive care.

"operating illegally in full view" vs "legal gray area" is not a determination that can be made based on your subjective view of what "makes a thing OK". The fact that you pair the accusation that they are "operating illegally in full view" with the notion that you can condemn a thing that is not "currently being prosecuted" only further undermines your argument. Your moral objection is your judgement to make, the question of what is illegal cannot be. The latter is exclusively the domain of the courts, not any individual (or collective) moral outrage. Your seeming desire to conflate the two to satisfy your personal feelings unfortunately undermines whatever cogent points you may have re their legality on the merits.

The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". You would be more convincing if you would levy your criticism in more reasonable terms. I personally suspect there is a lot more "gray area" here than you seem to contemplate.

Polymarket is already working on a full return to the US market aided by sympathetic policy changes of the current administration.

Additionally, the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious. Every company seeks to lower its regulatory burden. If they're not finding loopholes, then often they're the ones writing the regulations and funding congressional campaigns. I'm not sure the claim Polymarket is unique re its relationship to the government in this respect is credible. They seem to be working quite intimately with the current administration on returning from their Biden era "ban".

This would be more convincing if a single car had been exchanged for $1.

It didn't happen. Seems the bug was "contained".

Sort of undermines your point re "catastrophic business failure" don't you think?

This would be a more convincing take if reasoning LLMs didn't already exist. Given the growth in capability over the last few years alone nothing about your description "several minute explanation of how the item description and the slight differentiations of the boxes" seems beyond an artificial intelligence to solve by the time humanoid robots would be ready to physically traverse a warehouse.

Your last point is also interesting given perhaps a robot is more amenable to such instruction, thus creating cascading savings. Each human has to be trained, and could be individually a failure. Robot can essentially copy its "brain" to its others.

Or likely more accurately, download the latest brain trained from all the robot's aggregate experiences from the amazon hivemind hq

You forgot a big one in your description of the hypothetical advantages:

No free will

> Totally understood on the feedback [...] we are grateful for their support

So are you going to donate to them or not?

And? What strawman are you attacking? No one disputed that pragmatic concern. How did Cotton's viral line of questioning help clarify if or how the CEO was "vulnerable to PRC pressure"?

Should American CEOs who do business in China be subjected to the same lines of questioning re their citizenship? You think Americans who do business in China aren't influenced or "vulnerable to PRC pressure"? China is a huge market, one of (if not perhaps the most) desirable in the whole world. You think American companies don't behave to please the PRC when operating in China?

Tbh it is either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised at the idea that American citizens running international businesses are somehow immune to "PRC pressure" given the PRC is the government of one of the largest and most desirable markets in the entire world.

Tom Cotton's line of inquiry is embarrassing on all grounds. The fact you have to draw up a strawman to defend it says a lot. As with the claim of "ethnonationalism", if he had even a shred of concrete evidence re PRC pressure he could have brought it to bear and dispensed with the repetitive citizenship questionnaire.

Sorry, I simply don't know what point you are making. If you are trying to propose some alternative system that is one thing. I'm merely clarifying that your statement does not make sense in the context of the system we already have. It is not meant to be a red herring. The reason that adage about "don't ask questions..." even exists among trial lawyers is because of the state's great power over its own citizens (and others it has authority over).

Now I guess maybe what you are saying is that the state shouldn't have these powers, and therefore we should be able to more freely ask and answer questions in courts and congress, then fine. But I'm not sure I agree with that or I want to engage with whatever you proposed alternative is. I think simply it doesn't comport to equate some kind "hostility to inquisitive and curious reasoning" to the adage, because the point is that the courts are not a venue for such a thing.

Now if you think they should be, that is a separate argument. I don't see how any institution that has the power to deprive people of their liberty could ever be a venue for "inquisitive and curious reasoning". Which is why I said the courts and congress are not the universities. In fact, there is very good historical literature that elucidates the role of the university as something of a sovereign entity in the Western tradition given this almost definitional tension with the institutions of the state.

In reading the subtext in your comment, I think we may agree in more than a few areas, but we are just coming at this from slightly different directions. Again, the adage came up with respect to Cotton's performance as an examiner in the context where people in his position have great power to damage those sitting before him.

It's an adversarial system by design. If you want to redesign it fine, but the adage makes sense given this is the system. It applies to Cotton in this case as well, even if he is the state here, because naturally even though there will not be any real consequences for him, he still falls under the same risks re the success of making an argument in this kind of venue if you ask a question without considering the answer you will be eliciting. I also don't really think him asking essentially the same question about his citizenship multiple times is a species of "inquisitive and curious reasoning" anyway. So while I think I may sympathize with your general notions I'm not sure I really know what you are getting at.

a cross examination or a congressional hearing is not a university lecture.

would you like your liberty to be at risk just so a judge or a senator can satisfy their curiosity at your expense? do you have any idea what the penalties can be for failing to comply with a judicial or congressional subpoena? is the penalty of perjury consistent with "inquisitive and curious reasoning"? or is that an instrument of "hostility"?

it would not be a free country if the judicial and legislative systems were equated with "inquisitive and curious reasoning". if they want to serve that function they can give up their power to deprive people of their liberty.

What is the American ethnicity? Should all other ethnicities be subjected to the same round of questioning before the United States Congress?

I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he thought he was going to elicit some Chinese "ethnonationalist" response, then he failed, and as such, was idiotic in pursuing this line of questioning. I agree with you he knows Singapore is not in China. That's not what makes his line of questioning stupid. It is that he essentially asks the same question multiple times and gets the same answer. The reason he looks dumb is because his line of questioning is dumb.

If he had some evidence the CEO was an "ethnonationalist" he could have confronted him with that. He doesn't and he didn't, so instead he committed himself to a bs line of questioning that ended up embarrassing him. If there is an unstated question as you claim, he could have asked it directly. He didn't. Why is that?

What did he achieve by this line of questioning, besides making himself look like a fool? This is his one job, he's one of only 100 people (really less) who gets these opportunities and this is the best he can do? Why are you making excuses for him? Demand better from your representatives.

I should note I am really straining to be charitable to your view. I think the real unstated, obvious subtext here is a white guy from Arkansas with the last name "Cotton" is openly trading in the same type of racist dog whistling his ancestors more than likely engaged in. I mean if we are just going to randomly accuse people of being ethnonationalists why not start with the Senator? Since you see no problem with crafting lines of inquiry based on your rather broad statement that "some people are ethnonationalists" (ok... and?) then maybe we should start with the Senator himself. I mean, why not? What makes the Tiktok CEO a more compelling suspect? I think it's obvious why the clip resonated beyond the feeble questioning - it's because many Americans can empathize with the CEO in this case. If the Senator had done his basic homework he would know Singapore doesn't allow dual citizens, so he already had his answer at the first question, which he would have already known if he had done any basic research. They are supposed to prepare for these things you know.

I mean I really am just disappointed in you, as an American citizen. The idea you need to have your representatives ask these kinds of questions in the United States on the off chance someone is an ethnonationalist... it just feels ironic. You should probably read up on your history most people who ask these types of questions from the seats of power in the United States Senate have historically been the ethnonationalists. As I stated if Cotton had evidence of his views, he could have raised them. Or asked about them directly. Instead he essentially asked the same question about his citizenship numerous times. Why?

I appreciate you replying in what I take to be good faith though. I don't mean to turn it into a question of race/ethnicity alone, which I gather will only alienate you. Then again, you are the one who brought up "ethnonationalism". I'm not even sure I know what exactly you mean by that term, but I find your invocation of it here to be suspect. But I am trying to be charitable to your position. The point remains his line of questioning did not clear up any "ethnonationalist" notions, but honestly I felt I had to edit this and be more straightforward with my criticism of your rejoinder. I just think you might want to consider why this clip resonated, instead of the straw man you seemed to posit (internet thinks Cotton thinks Singapore is in China).

i understand that perfectly, which is why i responded sarcastically to a point trying to connect this to TikTok's "argument" re their Singaporean CEO by pasting an infamous digression on that very topic.

seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR):

So you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore. Of what nation are you a citizen?

Shou Chew:

Singapore.

Cotton:

Are you a citizen of any other nation?

Chew:

No, Senator.

Cotton:

Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?

Chew:

Senator? I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.

Cotton:

Do you have a Singaporean passport?

Chew:

Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.

Cotton:

Do you have any other passports from any other nations?

Chew:

No, Senator.

Cotton:

Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens?

Chew:

That's correct.

Cotton:

Have you ever applied for American citizenship?

Chew:

No, not yet.

Cotton:

Okay. Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Chew:

Senator? I'm Singaporean, no.

Cotton:

Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?

Chew:

No. Senator, again, I'm Singaporean.

While I broadly agree with this characterization, it is somewhat inaccurate.

> the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge.

I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush.

Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be.

Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge".

That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.

I wasn't talking to single issue republicans... I didn't take the OP to be one, and I (like you) would not waste much time on one.

The point I was trying to make is Democrats can elect and nominate better candidates. But let's also not forget, single issue Republicans are not the only problem.

Institutional or single issue Democrats are also the problem. The biggest problem with Democrats is the DNC. The same people who lied to you about Biden's fitness for a second term are by and large still there. They still want your money. The DNC uses the Trump fear to escape accountability for its failures at every turn. The losers who have lost to this man for about a decade now are still there.

So I think we are in agreement, but I would add the reason more young people and independents need to vote is to replace the power structure on both sides of the aisle, not merely the one in power today. This is not "both sides", rather two things can be true. An institutional Democrat can be better than what we have today, but I think history has shown in the long run it is not good enough. What comes after this from the right in the near future may be far worse. Do not underestimate the ability for a future nominee to make the current president look like a saint... recall when people thought Bush II was a low point. It can happen again. If we keep electing mediocre Democrats, I believe it will.

Thank you for clarifying your comment, I appreciate you coming back to do that.

Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position?

Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.

Is this supposed to be an intelligent comment? Is your answer to forgo elections ahead of time? You plan for the worst outcome by already accepting it as reality?

Why don't you work on lobbying your grandparents and their vote because I seriously doubt you are equipped for whatever armed conflict you are imagining. Have some dignity. If Americans are so called upon to defend the constitution then so be it, there is no need to prematurely soil your pants about it.

It's not that complicated. Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG, not a useless ditherer like Garland. What a disgraceful tenure he had. If he was going to take so long to bring charges he should have just avoided it. Instead he takes 3 years to bring all these charges which naturally look like election interference and as such are paused until they choke the election away and the new justice department kills all the cases.

Don't elect a geriatric compromise candidate. The current administration's excesses create a massive opportunity for a pendulum swing. It's really not that hard. Hold yourself, your neighbors, your family and your friends accountable for who they vote for. And as tempting as it is, don't give into cynicism. It will take work but change for the better is always possible, and really in America, is far less out of reach than it would often seem.

This is not the history of politics.

Movements that ignore the need for a charismatic leader fail, often spectacularly. It's why for example occupy wallstreet was such a laughable failure. Who was its leader? Is the human megaphone a species of "massive collaboration and communication"? Can you name me one leader from that movement who was nationally recognized as such?

Strong leaders are always required. Such people reduce the cost of messaging and communication which would otherwise be insurmountable to cohere a movement and actually make change. You don't elect a mob. Find leaders you trust and spread your conviction without apology. Roosevelt was not Roosevelt until after his works were done. We don't need some amorphous "massive collaboration and communication" we need to elect leaders who will fight for what we believe. So many of your friends, family and neighbors are willing to elect sell-out leaders. You could start there, that is if you actually want to fix the problem rather than invent new ones.

> LLMs don't second-guess whether a change is worth submitting, and they certainly don't feel the social pressure of how their contribution might be received. The filter is completely absent.

Of course you could have an agent on your side do this, so I take you to mean a LLM that submits a PR and is not instructed to make such a reflection will not intrinsically make it as a human would, that is as a necessary side effect of submitting in the first place (though one might be surprised).

It would be curious to have an API that perhaps attempts to validate some attestation about how the submitting LLM's contribution was derived, ie force that reflection at submission time with some reasonable guarantees of veracity even if it had yet to be considered. Perhaps some future API can enforce such a contract among the various LLMs.

Prioritizing or deferring to existing contributors happens in pretty much every human endeavor.

As you point out this of course predates the age of LLM, in many ways it's basic human tribal behavior.

This does have its own set of costs and limitations however. Judgement is hard to measure. Humans create sorting bonds that may optimize for prestige or personal ties over strict qualifications or ability. The tribe is useful, but it can also be ugly. Perhaps in a not too distant future, in some domains or projects these sorts of instincts will be rendered obsolete by projects willing to accept any contribution that satisfies enough constraints, thereby trading human judgement for the desired mix of velocity and safety. Perhaps as the agents themselves improve this tension becomes less an act of external constraint but an internal guide. And what would this be, if not a simulation of judgement itself?

You could also do it in stages, ie have a delegated agent promote people to some purgatory where there is at least some hope of human intervention to attain the same rights and privileges as pre-existing contributors, that is if said agent deems your attempt worthy enough. Or maybe to fight spam an earnest contributor will have to fork over some digital currency, to essentially pay the cost of requesting admission.

All of these scenarios are rather familiar in terms of the history of human social arrangements.

That is just to say, there is no destruction of the social contract here. Only another incremental evolution.

And they make money. A scammer is the President of the United States.

At a certain point why blame people for trying to keep up? Why are scammers so successful? It seems to me we have a systemic failure at a societal level. Until we are honest about that it will only get worse. Until then maybe some rouge LLM botching some critical system will be the wake up call we need.

I am not sure what to make of critiques that seem to rest on notions of a small population of scammers preying upon the doe-eyed public. I think the situation is a bit closer to Carlin: garbage in, garbage out. A critique that holds up quite excellently in this AI age.