We shouldn’t prioritize efficiency when it comes to moral matters. That’s a bad idea for the government.
People’s primary residences are more than just an economic asset. If you don’t understand that, it’s difficult to have a conversation as we have very different starting points about morality.
There is no inalienable right to live in a place because you were there first.
Housing is a fungible good. I have friends and family living in squalor because people have decided sentiment is a valid reason to keep people in these four walls instead of those four walls.
I think people’s primary residence should not be seen as assets in the way they are today at all. The only reason they are is substantial government intervention.
Bullshit. Your comment is wholly nonsensical. Housing is distinctly non-fungible. You can't move a housing unit around from its intrinsic location! Housing exists in a neighborhood and in particular jurisdictions. That is fundamentally unchangeable (I mean unless you've got a mobile home or a historic house that actually can move: that's the exception to the rule.)
Housing is also set up in a particular way. A McMansion is nothing like a 1BR apartment. A condo is nothing like a ranch-style SFH. The aforementioned mobile homes could never serve a family of 12 or be attached to a swimming pool. These are not interchangeable things! They are unlike a barrel of oil or a $100 bill, my dude! Not to mention, illiquid. You tie up some money in real estate, and you can't simply trade one house for another. You want to sell houses, that's a chore. That's not a diamond in your pocket; that's the definition of non-fungible.
"Housing" as property is additionally two separate things in one package: the structures on the land, and the land itself. You can't usually sell one without the other, you see. So how is that fungible, when these two intrinsically linked commodities are clearly not.
It's true that nobody cares "who was there first", but property ownership confers real rights. The right to stay put, and the right to expel unwelcome people from your property. The right to defend it, or at least have the authorities defend your life and property within. Even renting tenants have rights, as long as their bills are current. It's not a matter of "who is here first" but God-given and gov-granted rights of occupation. In a less civilized place, your property rights would be defended with guns and violence, as against invasions.
Housing is, like, one of the least fungible commodities possible. I don't even know how you say that. How do you define fungible so that it includes housing? Pray tell! Inquiring minds want to know!
Would you define two apartment units next to each other, with the same floor plan as fungible?
What about the house next door?
For the purposes that people use them for, there is an immense allocation problem in the US. People are sitting on a 5b/5ba and living alone. Bizarre sets of incentives have culminated to make this possible. We have collectively decided that for some reason, it’s completely sane to live in a house that you don’t need. We should look at it the same way as owning a stretch hummer.
Did they reach a good diagnosis by using tools to provide themselves additional information to process?
Or did they make a fatally wrong diagnosis that was only discovered because the old doctor whipped out their medical encyclopedias? You left us hanging without the relevant part of the story!
I agree. The companies want to release their models that are just ahead of the competition while working on UX based vendor lockin. They can buffer model releases if everyone is slowing down (releases are hard and expensive!) and then do more foundational-but-not-ready-to-apply research while continuing on he funding, valuation, addition, and revenue pushes.
I read the whole thing as coordinated behavior to reduce the breakneck pace of 2026.
I think it’s more precise to say it’s easier to change the mind of someone who lives in symbols than who lives in dirt. Whether that is changing their mind for the better (oh new maths proof, I’d better update my priors) or the worse.
Whatever the tool, the problem is that it’s wrong, not that it’s done by AI. Like, why are we conflating the two - is it because it’s now easier for someone to produce a wrong artifact that visually looks ok and therefore tricks our brains? And people get upset because a prior quality heuristic is now obviously broken?
Because this new tool will also tell you, in (mostly) human language, why the wrong artifacts it createds are correct. And it's arguments are very convincing to a lot of people. AI is clearly creating new problems that didn't really exist before, you can't say it's just a tool like any other when this is the only tool where its users form parasocial relationships with it.
It's not only the only tool that tries to manipulate users, it's also one that is certain to lie often and at random. Lies are inherent to the technology. It's a bad tool for the things it's being used for.
Yeah I think so. I mean it's a new social norm - previously if you replied with "hey I read this article here and it says X" it would be really easy to check the source and either say yeah this looks good or disprove it.
Now people will say "I asked AI to give me a map of ocean currents and it definitively says the person is here!" and the argument that "look it's AI, it's probably wrong" just does nothing for a lot of people. Doubly so if the information they want is at the forefront of Google, after all, Google is a big reputable company, so of course what it says is correct.
Yes I agree that the AI itself isn't the problem, but the way it's being pushed and promoted(just ask anything!) is leading to this.
If you say it's obviously AI nonsense you get a reply that "AI is just a tool, it's part of our daily life now, criticize the content and not what tool was used", you see that so much on here. But then if you try to criticize the content the person won't believe you because the AI says it's correct.
You don't have to be a redneck moron to enjoy the things you can do that require a gun. There's plenty of hunters and sports shooters that realize that the authoritarians will eventually restrict guns to keep themselves safe.
Right, agents work on behalf of the user and only cost compute (not time/attention, which is the ultimate human currency). They act on behalf of me not Amazon.
It is my personally optimistic perspective on AI that it will mediate all interactions with 3P who are acting in their own interest and not mine. Ie, “my” agent.
It’s an optimistic view on AI - brings power to the people by mediating all the garbage.
I’ve already used it to handle customer support request calls. I see 30+ minute hold+conversation times and generally the issue gets resolved. That is hugely empowering.
People’s primary residences are more than just an economic asset. If you don’t understand that, it’s difficult to have a conversation as we have very different starting points about morality.
reply