shigawire

The good faith interpretation is that innovation is spurred by having some guarantees that your innovation isn't immediately ripped off. It allows for investing more into R&D.

I'm not saying the current system achieves that, but it is part of the justification.

Disagree on best for the country.

Global market for oil. If the oil intensity of your economy is high, higher oil prices impacting all goods/services will outweigh increased oilel revenues.

That is the idea behind "mass drivers" on the moon I believe. Maybe that search term helps.

As someone who changed careers as my youngest was born - hard agree.

It is to make a system where people are less incentivized to commit crimes.

That part was intentional

If you have artifacts saved as you develop it can use those when writing docs to capture intent and design decisions.

I don't think "cheating" is the right way to frame it.

A junior has managers pushing them to do more, faster. You review the code but do you really understand it the same as if you struggled through it? Do you ever build the muscle memory of what works and what doesn't?

It is the thought process that builds skills. I've seen some projects trying to be deliberate about learning from the agent as it writes to code - but I'm not sure there is a substitute for struggling and learning by doing.

I'd rather the AI providers bear the cost of the externalities they inflict on the world.

If the cost to users is reasonable with that added burden I'll happily pay it. If it is not viable without passing costs on society, then they should not be in business.

I'd say the people complaining about AI likely see EVs as having some utility. While AI may have some utility, the amount of resources invested seems to make it more of a ponzi scheme waiting to pop.

Because they've been propagandized and don't have the time or inclination to think differently.

>trying to manage a confiscatory bureaucracy would have the same issues

It would be a cat and mouse game but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Like how funding the IRS appropriately increases government revenue.

As a "young" coder I am hesitant because I don't have decades of skills to fall back on.

It is even more abstraction, even harder to follow the code I'm "writing" with AI.

Also I have a fear that if/when the AI tide recedes, I'll be the one caught with my pants down since I have been forced to vibe code the majority of my career. As opposed to greybeards who can fall back on their decades of knowledge.

Good luck, I'm naming all my variables openclaw1, openclaw2, etc

They want to say that non-whites are naturally dumber than whites. There will be varying degrees of subtlety but that's what the dog whistlers are on about.

Many, many seems like overstating a rare corner case that can easily be proven.

> almost everyone working on SaaS; not in all cases, but the absolute majority work on SaaS means creating artificial scarcity in order to extract value from people.

Maybe this is just my lack of understanding in how most SaaS companies operate... But to me making software that people find valuable and charging them for that is not inherently immoral. Surely that is the majority of cases?

Is that true or just a rumor? All the family medicine people I know would not do that. Only in a case where it is 50/50 bacterial or viral like an ear infection in a young kid.

Because it obviously doesn't have the capability. Similar to how the US has no capability to "win" from the air only.

With private, you get exactly what you want, whenever you want it... If you can afford it.

Minor nit - enterprise EMRs brand themselves as EHR because they consider it more encompassing than just medical records.

I agree on other points.

I hate to be the AI guy, but a coach that lived in my terminal and corrected me when I do it the slow way would actually help.

>I think there is a chance that these systems will lead to a change where the note isn't the fundamental record of the encounter. Instead different artifacts are created specifically for each entity that needs it. Billing gets their view, and scheduling gets theirs, and, etc etc..

This is what an EHR does somewhat. The discrete data elements in the DB and the way they are displayed in the system are a better record than free text notes.

The problem is creating standards so this data is easily exchanged. Anyone can read and parse a free text note - but if we had standards this would be less necessary.

> Why does it have to be a world changing life altering experience?

Because the global economy has been wagered on this

> Because they dont want to be the person maintaining this, so we should those people not self-hosting a free software now go one step further and also build those products?

If one thinks AI can do this eventually then it makes sense. But I feel that is impossible the predict.

The disillusionment comes from hospital admins constantly squeezing blood from a stone.

Patient populations are up, nursing FTEs down. Support staff down.

>Nothing about the current state of the healthcare system makes much sense to anyone that tries to peel back the onion.

I'd offer a slight tweak. None makes sense in a vacuum or solely considering efficiency. It all makes sense seeing the evolution over time and the misaligned incentives.

More likely assumed (perhaps rightfully) that there would be no consequences anyway.

Or if you say we should slow down your competence is questioned by others who are going very fast (and likely making mistakes we won't find until later).

And there is an element of uncertainty. Am I just bad at using these new tools? To some degree probably, but does that mean I'm totally wrong and we should be going this fast?