Do you have any faith in democracy? For my reckoning, it's the great equaliser. Rich people can lobby all they like, but if the people are starving, they vote for change.
In the US, it seems pretty hard to vote for change when, for all intents and purposes, every four years, two candidates are pre-selected for voters to pick from; and primaries (1) either don't happen or (2) are objectively rigged against popular/majority vote; see 'superdelegates'.
I must admit, I think the two party system in the US is not good. The primary system in particular needs fixing. I couldn't believe when the Democrats just suspended the primary election last time - especially after the multi-year PR war about rigged elections and election interference.
Still, I think they learned their lesson and they'll have a primary next time. People will get to vote on a candidate they like. We should also remember that the Presidency is just one arm of government. Elections are also happening for the House, Senate, and local government of all shapes and sizes.
> meaning I am inspecting every single line it changes.
I think this is changing fast. Pressure is increasing on devs for output, and most devs I know are no longer inspecting lines. I have devs in my business unit who claim to not have looked at code for months, except on certain rare occasions. I am not a developer and this week I've been given access to the repo to build my own apps and extensions. There's a "review" between commit and deploy, but there's no chance the Tech Lead can manually review everything, so that's getting done by AI too.
I know this horrifies a lot of devs, but these tools are shockingly good and we are not seeing an increase in bugs. In fact our automated detections (also AI assisted) are reducing the number of customer reported critical bugs.
I really think the days of inspecting every line are over.
This type of codebases will become a goldmine for cybersec in the near future. Except by then, only few people will be able to detect them or fix them. LLMs will leave the hardest problems and most difficult bugs plus and plethora of devs who either have skill atrophy or haven't learn these things in the first place.
I don’t think this is accurate. Our AI testing is finding exploits we’ve had in our codebase for 15 years. No human ever detected it. No deterministic tests. Our apps are getting more secure, not less.
Actually, cybersecurity seems to be the area that LLMs shine the most at; though it needs directing to actually look for the problem, LLMs have been able to find security faults in code that is well-vetted and written by experts.
It's an interesting philosophic question. LLMs tend to be overly verbose and defensive in coding. It's not a ton of extra complexity but it makes the code harder to follow for a human. But if a human is not writing the code how much does that matter?
I agree that they have gotten shockingly good. It's been a long time since I've seen them do something that is objectively wrong. Once we get closer to the "too cheap to meter" cost level things will change radically again.
Have you ever tried to use an LLM to add a feature to a really nice, pre 2023 codebase? It’s incredible how much easier it is to do, how much of a difference you instantly feel
> It's not a ton of extra complexity but it makes the code harder to follow for a human.
It is. I have seen Claude chasing after endless amount of edge cases that are just irrelevant in real usage especially for the kind of users we are supporting. At some point you need to stop reasoning about all those cases because it has zero benefit.
But it IS a ton of complexity and blows out context windows. Less code good. More code bad. Both for human and agent. Somehow, still only human can make code less.
Yes and….no. I have seen this play out at a large corp to spectacularly awful results. Talking 60k line react nextjs apps where every use effect has a linter silenced because the ai gave up on writing correct react code.
I have seen millions wasted because someone trusted an ai scripts calculation of a metric from the bottom of the org that led the top of the org to make a wrong decision only to laugh about ai. There is value but ffs read the god damn code. You can have the cake and eat it too. If the volume of code is so large you cannot read it, maybe it isnt worth shipping?
Or are you one of the ones pushing the real code reading on to others which seems to be common. Yes i can have agents vibe out 10 features and have my coworkers suffer fixing it in reviews.
What IS useful are the AI reviews. They catch bugs, not all are bugs but they do catch some. It is almost like they are better at finding logical issues across millions of tokens but not good at writing streamlined logic.
The number of times ai gives me a 800 line dif only to replace it with a 5 line dif after i read it and notice it grossly overcomplicated the ask and scoped in a bunch of nonsense from training data.
The EU would rather destroy our right to privacy than hold criminals accountable. If I sound bitter it's because I have become very bitter over the last decade. The EU appears very effective at picking on individuals and people who can't fight back, and absolutely toothless when it comes to taking on more powerful interests. There are very few cases of the EU tangibly improving my life over the last decade, and countless examples of making it worse.
Yes, like Google and Apple. If you would take a look at my submission history, you'll see exactly one. It was me celebrating the passing of the Digital Markets Act more than four years ago. This Act clearly lays out requirements for gatekeepers like Apple. I summarise these requirements in a comment in the submission:
* Install any software
* Install any App Store and choose to make it default
* Use third party payment providers and choose to make them default
* Use any voice assistant and choose to make it default
* User any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default
* Use any messaging app and choose to make it default
* Make core messaging functionality interoperable. They lay out concrete examples like file transfer
* Use existing hardware and software features without competitive prejudice. E.g. NFC
* Not preference their services. This includes CTAs in settings to encourage users to subscribe to Gatekeeper services, and ranking their own services above others in selection and advertising portals
To date, Apple has implemented only a handful of these, and they have done so with malicious intent. For example, they have made the creation and distribution of third party app stores to onerous that very few companies have navigated the gauntlet and actually used it. Third party browser engines are now technically supported, but so poorly that not even Google has endeavoured to create an iOS browser engine. The worst example is app distribution. The DMA requires gatekeepers to facilitate free distribution. Apple has failed to cmoply with this for four years, and has repeatedly appealed when admonished. The Commission has been sitting on their most recent "review" for over a year now, without any updates.
The net result of all of this is that Apple has retained almost all of their duopolistic market power, and has implemented almost none of the DMA requirements. They have given us the middle finger and our legislators have gone to sleep.
> Which would those be? I would be interested to know.
I'll give you me perspective as a Danish citizen.
The EU imposed working-time recording requirements, so now I have to log my working hours every week. I'm a full time employee and I work longer and shorter weeks. Now I have to waste time each week logging my hours. My company has to waste time each week logging hours and reporting them to the government and the EU.
The EU required bottle caps to remain attached to most plastic drinks containers, so now I have to wrestle with an attached cap every time I drink from one.
The EU banned ordinary disposable plastic cutlery, plates and straws, removing products I previously had the choice to buy.
The EU introduced rules requiring consent for many non-essential cookies, helping turn everyday web browsing into an endless series of cookie banners.
The EU introduced "Strong Customer Authentication" requirements, so routine online payments and banking increasingly require additional authentication steps.
The EU abolished the €22 VAT exemption on low-value imports, making even tiny purchases from outside the EU subject to VAT. This one in particular sucks because the company or local tax authorities impose huge minimum fees, making small cross-border purchases far too expensive now.
The EU imposed expanded producer-responsibility rules on packaging, adding recycling fees, reporting requirements and compliance costs that ultimately feed into the prices I pay.
The EU passed even more extensive packaging regulations covering recyclability, recycled content, packaging minimisation and reuse, adding another layer of costs and restrictions to ordinary products.
The EU imposed increasingly strict CO2 targets on car manufacturers, financially penalising manufacturers whose fleets exceed them and increasing the pressure to make petrol and diesel cars more expensive or stop selling them.
The EU created ETS2, which from 2028 will add a carbon price to road fuels and home heating, creating another cost that fuel and energy suppliers can pass on to me.
The EU imposed sustainable aviation fuel mandates and tighter carbon rules on airlines, increasing the regulatory cost of flying.
The EU brought shipping into its carbon-pricing system and introduced FuelEU Maritime, leading shipping companies to add explicit EU environmental surcharges that feed into the cost of goods I buy.
The EU imposed Ecodesign restrictions on appliances, including maximum power limits for products such as vacuum cleaners, reducing the range of products I am allowed to buy.
The EU passed a minimum-wage directive despite Denmark already having its own collective-bargaining model, forcing Denmark to fight the EU in court to protect a labour-market system that was already working without a statutory minimum wage.
> The EU abolished the €22 VAT exemption on low-value imports
Because it was abused by countless vendors that just wrote a random value below 22 Euros on the label no matter how much it cost.
> The EU introduced rules requiring consent for many non-essential cookies, helping turn everyday web browsing into an endless series of cookie banners
Not sure why you're blaming the messenger. Either way this can be solved by installing a browser plugin.
I am not the user you responded to, but you are making a fairly egregious logical error. China is an authoritarian, autocratic state. It will never permit any incriminating evidence to surface. Arguing that hard scientific evidence is required for us to come to any conclusions is a de facto rejection of any scenario in which China, its provinces, or any individuals are culpable of anything. Ever. This is much closer to an ideological position than a logical or evidence-based position.
In these situations we rely heavily on intelligence services. For example, the German secret service has assessed an 80-95% probability that it was leaked from a lab in Wuhan and presented a report to then Chancellor Angela Merkel. [The assessment was later leaked and was published in a German Newspaper.](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/corona-bnd-china-li.3217...) I think the German intelligence services are far better equipped, resourced, and have far wider access to sensitive and privileged data, than either of us.
> I am not the user you responded to, but you are making a fairly egregious logical error. China is an authoritarian, autocratic state. It will never permit any incriminating evidence to surface.
you aren't saying anything here. "well the evidence could have been destroyed because China doesn't want it exposed" is not an argument for or against a lab leak. In fact, you and most people in these threads arguing for lab leak theory aren't providing evidence at all - you are just doing the classic "well isn't this weird"
You are making the same argument they are: that China cannot ever, for any reason be responsible for doing anything bad. I'm sorry, but I don't find your ideological position tenable. Destroying evidence doesn't exonerate one of culpability.
Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.
>In these situations we rely heavily on intelligence services
I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?
>The National Intelligence Council and four other IC
agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was
caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close
progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARSCoV-2
> Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.
They cannot evaluate evidence if all evidence has been destroyed.
> I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?
I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can't have it both ways.
To point, the US intelligence report “does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses.” Its purpose was to declassify information concerning potential WIV connections and describe what US intelligence knew about WIV activities. You cited a report you didn't read or didn't understand.
I should also point out that the US agencies couldn't agree. In 2023, FBI favoured a lab incident, Department of Energy favoured a lab incident, CIA favoured lab incident, and NIC + four other (name withheld) intelligence agencies favoured natural spillover.
> I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure if you just aren't engaging with what is being said or are not reading the full post - he only shared that link IN RESPONSE TO you appealing to intelligence services. Read again:
"I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. >>>BUT if we go by who has the better data<<<"
He is saying "well IF we ARE going by intelligence services because YOU made that argument, then what about this?"
He is implying that America is also an authoritarian, autocratic state. This was in response to my comment explaining why China will not comply with investigations. He is arguing that America cannot be trusted to provide accurate information, or comply with investigations. He argues this first, then attempts to argue that America is a more trustworthy source than Germany.
I'm just using your argument against you. Both are unreliable, China is authoritarian, America has been taken over by an authoritarian and science denying regime.
For about two years the vitriol people received for daring to suggest the virus might have leaked from a poorly secured lab near the origination site was unbelievable. I would like to believe everyone involved would take a long, hard look at themselves but I highly doubt they will. My favourite bit from the time was from [Jon Stewart on Colbert.](https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?si=qypQLgxKq2IbagfN) I've never seen Colbert so uncomfortable.
To a certain extent I can understand why no country wanted to point fingers at China because they didn't want to piss off their biggest trading partner. Especially by Germany, given how much they relied on China to buy their cars back then.
But the lack of transparency and the coverup to this day has immensely weaken the public trust in the scientific institution and government bodies for public health and safety.
I think the desire to protect trading relations was a component, but there were plenty of politicians willing to call for proper investigation in China. My perception was that the larger suppression was cultural. I myself was called racist on many occasions because I thought the risk was quite high that it came from a lab. For some reason it was less racist to suggest the virus came from a web market.
I agree with your comment re trust. I'm not sure institutional trust (at least in healthcare) will be regained in our lifetimes. I love vaccines, and I had all of them prior to and during the outbreak. Since then I have become profoundly wary of taking any medication without extensive longitudinal research.
I think a lot of people associate the lab leak theory with racism because it was most loudly championed by racists who were 100% sure it was a Chinese lab leak and they were not shy about sharing that opinion, well before there was enough evidence to support either claim (lab or wet market).
It seems people who actually looked at the evidence and came to the lab leak conclusion independent of racism got caught up in a 'racist by association' event.
I never understood the racist or xenophobic accusations, like since when was it wrong to question the authority demanding truth and facts.
But then again 2020 was the start of woke culture and everything and everyone has to be politically correct even though whatever you said ended up offending some group.
The vaccines work, however there will always be side effects to significant portion of people when it’s administered to billions of people. Although I find it dumb that young healthy people still get covid booster shots like you have the immunity already and your immune system now knows how to handle the virus
> I never understood the racist or xenophobic accusations
Here's the setting, 1000s are dying in hospitals every day. People know very little about how to protect themselves. The first country that was really hit locked everything down hard to reduce transmission.
Regardless of how you feel, separation and isolation is sure fire to prevent grandma dies via drowning in her own mucus.
But preventing deaths is anti-freedom. We can't prevent the deaths, but we can find someone to blame.
So we blame China because our own public health facilities cannot keep up with the actual virus. It's a human right to infect as many people as possible. It's a human right to have a 7th grade reading level while also telling doctors to "do their research".
Vaccines and quarantine have been selected as a culture war target. It's all over facebook now. Minions are telling your mother only dumb people get vaccines.
Since you can't be mad at a force of nature, you create conspiracies that the dastardly Chinese have released a virus while simultaneously moving mountains to prevent the spread within China.
The smart thing would be to follow the moves of the supposed evil country that wanted to kill americans, by doing what they do to protect their own citizens. Not today commies, they're both at fault for creating a virus, and any attempt at not dying is communism.
It seems like you’re just creating a narrative in your mind to make yourself feel better for veiling the truth.
Accidents happens and results in disasters. China could have been transparent and accepted that it was an accident and they are doing the best they can to contain it. Also they could have shared their research on the virus strain they have been experimenting in the research facility with the world immediately so the vaccine creation would have been faster.
Of course people would have been mad, but that would have ultimately resulted in a much safer and strict Lab safety measures enforcement to prevent a disaster like that in the future and faster vaccination and less number of deaths.
One cannot hide and coverup the truth, ultimately it would come out. One perfect example is Chernobyl. Soviet Union tried their best to keep it secret because admitting the disaster would have made them look weaker, but ultimately the truth came out.
I have a relatively high proportion of Neanderthal. I'm not sure if it creates additional health risks, but it's interesting to read the correlative research:
- We are more likely to be morning people.
- We have greater risk of sunburn.
- Higher likelihood of balding.
- Greater mechanical pain sensitivity.
- (Sometimes significant) effects on immune and antiviral responses.
- Some variants have increased risk of allergy.
- Some variants linked to larger lung capacity.
- Some associations with bone density.
- Neanderthal variants influence nose height and shape.
- Some variants linked to fewer miscarriages.
- Some variants associated with younger menopause.
- Strong statistical associations with smoking behaviour (more likely).
One of the worst cultural developments of this century has been creative people becoming censorship-hungry prudes. There is a certain romanticism about being anti-establishment, but then they became the establishment and couldn’t figure out what to do next.
I think you're blaming the wrong people. Most of the censorship I've seen is coming from ad funded platforms wanting to please corporations. Independent artists create all kinds of offensive content.
Unless you mean that there is less slurs and jokes against minorities, which is an improvement tbh.
No doubt the platforms are a problem too, but I was referring to the creatives themselves. Just a few examples I can remember.
In 2020 dozens of Hachette employees walked out over the publisher’s decision to publish Woody Allen’s memoir. Hachette cancelled the book.
Tina Fey asked NBC to remove 30 Rock episodes from all distribution.
Bill Lawrence (creator of Scrubs), asked to have episodes removed.
John Ridley (Oscar winning screen writer) asked HBO to remove Gone with the Wind.
Neil Young threatened to leave Spotify if they didn’t remove Joe Rogan.
The 2020 “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign which included Sacha Baron Cohen, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo DiCaprio, Judd Apatow, Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Jamie Foxx, Michael B. Jordan, Mark Ruffalo, Rosario Dawson, and MANY more, demanded platforms and distributors and channels remove content ranging from political ads to discussions of COVID.
I just asked ChatGPT and got about 10,000 examples of famous creatives demanding censorship. It didn’t used to be this way.
> Unless you mean that there is less slurs and jokes against minorities, which is an improvement tbh.
Censorship is bad unless I agree with it. Then it’s good. Stunning levels of thought and reason.
Bill Lawrence removed episodes because he and the cast hated that for years after they'd see people at halloween dressing as the characters in blackface, and realised that people were taking the wrong message from the episodes they'd made which were meant to mock the idea of people thinking it was OK to do blackface.
That isn't self-censorship, it's accepting that your work didn't read the way you wanted it to and deciding it's not worth having it out there under your name any more.
Freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak, and people should be allowed to say "I don't like this work of mine any more, I'm not continuing to publish it". If you advocate for enforced speech, you are the censor, just using a different tool.
> That isn't self-censorship, it's accepting that your work didn't read the way you wanted it to and deciding it's not worth having it out there under your name any more.
You are confused about the definition of the word censor:
> [to prevent part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor)
I understand Lawrence has reasons for his calls for censorship. All censorious people have reasons for their demands. They are still calls for censorship. Lawrence is free to not speak. He's even free to demand that media be censored. No one has argued otherwise.
I'm aware of the definition of censorship, but the context is you saying:
> One of the worst cultural developments of this century has been creative people becoming censorship-hungry prudes.
This is not the same as a dictionary definition of censorship generally.
Presenting people changing their views over time as they learn as some evidence of some new trend of "censorship-hungry prudes" is silly. It's hysteria and a false narrative trying to paint something normal and healthy as equivalent to something dangerous.
The much bigger media preservation issue is actually represented by Scrubs: the fact that all the streaming services now have the show with all the music cut out and replaced with generic royalty-free stuff because the licenses ran out.
TV self-censored for years. Elvis was unfit for family viewing. Punks wouldn’t share stages with racists and ejected National Front supporters from gigs. Rock against Racism was founded partly in response to Eric Clapton’s pro-Enoch Powell racist remarks. Dead Kennedeys were not exactly coy about where they drew the line.
If you want medical analogies for COVID, AIDS disinformation is perfect. ACT UP and similar AIDS movements would have laughed you out of creative spaces for bringing misinformation about how AIDS was spread.
If you have ChatGPT tokens going spare, you can ask it for a balanced view of historical artistic deplatforming and self-censoring. I asked mine and, in classic one-liner machine-slop dunk, it said…
“The argument sounds like it is being made by someone under 40 who believes they’re living through a unique historical decline but refuses to read a book, or someone over 40 who missed the world around them. Ask them which they are.”
Elvis wasn't the one calling for censorship. It was religious viewers - the audience.
I'm not denying that there were examples of creatives - like punks - who called for censorship. I'm describing a massive shift in scale and scope.
I did as you suggested because it's important to have a broad and balanced view of the issues. I used the query "Do you believe the scale and scope of creatives calling for censorship is worse, better, or the same today as it was 50 years ago? Provide a detailed response but summarise with one sentence at the end." I used Sol 5.6 Extra High (I'm deliberately avoiding Sol 6 right now due to some issues with hallucinations). I have a system prompt which emphasises accuracy and citations over speed.
I won't paste the entire passage (Hacker News bans and/or rate limits accounts which do that), but I will paste the summary. Note that I've read the analysis in full, and while I am more informed now, it has not changed my opinion.
> "On the specific question of creatives themselves calling for lawful expression to be suppressed, removed or deplatformed, I think the evidence points to it being broader in scope and probably more common today than 50 years ago, although formal government censorship was in some respects more coercive then."
Feel free to ask your research model the same question. I would encourage you to use a better paid model with careful system prompt, direction, and effort. Your model sounds like a petulant teenager.
““use a better paid model” as an argument from authority is magnificent. We’ve somehow reinvented “my dad can beat up your dad,” except our dads are inference-time budgets”.
So there’s that.
Getting back to human responses; it’s hard to argue your robot’s conclusion when it only got to a weak “probably” while comparing the communication environments of 1980’s (no social media) and 2026 (very much social media). Lots more people with lots bigger platforms dealing with lots more voices on what should/shouldn’t be tolerated -> perceived increase in volume of censorship by both audience and other creatives (themselves taking role of both audience and performer playing to their own audience)
Elvis may not have been calling to censor himself, but the hosts and producers (themselves creatives) followed the demands of the audience - surely at least a somewhat close analogy to creatives amplifying the voices of their audiences today?
To get a bit better than your model’s “probably”, maybe we should shoot for specifics. If we agree there was a “dark past” where government and religious pressure created artistic censorship to comparable levels to today, and if I concede to move the argument forward that we’re in “historical decline” now. Where specifically do you put the beginning and end of the “golden age”?
The dark past could of course overlap with the start of the subsequent decline, creating not a golden age but a shit age, centered maybe on the late 80s.
It seems entirely disingenuous to tell me to investigate this in earnest and ask ChatGPT for answers, then dismiss it when it didn't give you the answer you wanted. I gave you the model, the effort level, the query, and the summary, which you could use to confirm what I write. I note that you haven't tested this yourself - ostensibly because you know it will return something similar. Further, you either didn't read my comments or are attempting to straw man them, because I have not stated nor argued that religious and government censorship is equivalent today. I also find the implication in your final question absurd. There is no way to place chronological boxes around cultural change. They are not binary, and I do not believe you think they are.
Your comment is dishonesty wrapped in condescension, and it's clear that you never intended to have any kind of earnest discussion here.
Of all the replies I was expecting from you, this wasn’t on my betting slip.
There’s no condescension here; you had one key thesis I objected to (and, incidentally, were the first to invoke a robot war!)
> I just asked ChatGPT and got about 10,000 examples of famous creatives demanding censorship. It didn’t used to be this way.
My argument is - it did “used to be this way”. Your proxy, as best as I can tell, agreed.
> formal government censorship was in some respects more coercive then.
And your courageous avatar made a weak (e.g. the word probably, not provably and “I think” not “I showed”) supportive claim (I cannot see the reams of research behind the conclusion).
> I think the evidence points to it being broader in scope and probably more common today than 50 years ago
I said, ok, let’s take that at face - where do you feel the transition happend, and posited reasons why the transition may seem stronger (social media).
Now you’re unwilling to argue specifics and off dismissing my sincerity. Adult argument fully abandoned, feelings abound!
So neither of us will learn anything useful today. I’ll never find out specifically when you believe our slippery slope began, and you’ll never explore whether reality matches your thinking. Let’s hope the data centers that powered your race to self-confirmation were running on solar, so at least the environment was spared!
In the hope of rescuing some thread.
> There is no way to place chronological boxes around cultural change.
This is not only demonstrably false, it also turns your initial thesis “it didn’t used to be like this” into a farce. You were the first to claim there was some time boxing we could apply!
It also, candidly, reinforces the first conclusion robo-me reached. “ someone under 40 who believes they’re living through a unique historical decline but refuses to read a book”. My robot gave me 10,000 examples of books on the study and findings of historians researching the evolution of cultural norms over time. It is very much a thing. I very much believe in it sincerely as a valuable discipline.
If you really want to argue that nobody can say Victorian social norms evolved, and were arguably most harmed by the First World War. Or that the gender and sexual attitudes of the post-second-world-war were pushed to breaking point during a period known as the “swinging sixties”. Or that the introduction of social media and camera phones to the schoolyard caused a dramatic change in kids’ behaviors. Then I think you’re being a special kind of Saturday obstinate.
But if you are actually trying to discuss rather than play-fight, try answering the question - when specifically do you think that the decline began, such that we are no longer living in the rose-tinted era where things “used to be”?
And dude, you can back your claim down or add nuance to it - “creatives censor in a different way in the internet era to how the censored in the TV era” is a defensible claim, I’ll even let you have “the nature of what is censored now has changed”. You’re just not getting away with a demonstrably false “there’s more censorship now”.
In 2020 dozens of Hachette employees walked out over the publisher’s decision to publish Woody Allen’s memoir. Hachette cancelled the book.
Tina Fey asked NBC to remove 30 Rock episodes from all distribution.
Bill Lawrence (creator of Scrubs), asked to have episodes removed.
John Ridley (Oscar winning screen writer) asked HBO to remove Gone with the Wind.
Neil Young threatened to leave Spotify if they didn’t remove Joe Rogan.
The 2020 “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign which included Sacha Baron Cohen, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo DiCaprio, Judd Apatow, Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Jamie Foxx, Michael B. Jordan, Mark Ruffalo, Rosario Dawson, and MANY more, demanded platforms and distributors and channels remove content ranging from political ads to discussions of COVID.
I just asked ChatGPT and got about 10,000 examples of famous creatives demanding censorship. It didn’t used to be this way.
I don’t mind (within reason), and I think you’ll be shocked by how many people do not care. I self host passwords and keep financial access secure. Otherwise I don’t give a shit if someone sees my 30 year old dong in a picture, my bills, or my bucket list. Have fun!
These people are beyond hope. No they don't care about anything. They are waiting for the bots to plug them into the matrix so they can finish out their lives in silico.
> Opus is my interface for 95% off my work. I don’t open emails anymore i let it summarize draft and handle most of the work and I only talk to Claude and not read/write the emails myself.
I’m trying to do the same. Could you give me some tips on what works for you?
You're going to get a wide range of responses on this but given the improvement in these models in just one year, and the number of bugs they're detecting which humans could not, I suspect that even median vibe-coded software is going to surpass median human coded software soon - if it hasn't already.
The important thing to remember here is there perfect isn't on the table. The benchmark is existing human-introduced bugs vs LLM-introduced bugs. Many developers have encountered odd bugs which a human would not have introduced, while forgetting about all the bugs caught which humans introduced. Or their opinion is formed by models from six months ago.
Mine isn’t. To point: we don’t really have a definition of vibe-coded anymore. All software has some degree of AI enhancement now. Is vibe-coded when it’s 60%? 80% 100%?
Try out Opus 5.5 on high. It’s shockingly good. Of course if you’re trying to one-shot a sprawling application with load balanced distributed DBs, you’re going to have a bad time. For small, defined features, it’s pretty fucking great.
reply