> ** Cost of token I believe is relatively cheaper compared to a full-time engineer and it'll get cheaper over time.
I don't know how true this is going to be, at least in the short term. The big providers are likely running at a loss and, as models have gotten better, they've also crept up in price as well.
They/you are counting on them hitting a point where it is actually cheap for the value provided (after they take some off the top) but I don't see that as inevitable before these companies go under or pivot into much more specialized tools for big clients.
It's not clear to me that AI code is cheaper than human code (of equal functionality).
This reads like you just desperately wanted to criticize, but couldn't really be troubled to research the background for a minute or two.
The IRA was a law passed by Congress. It set aside funds for grid upgrades, but did give some latitude to the President to deal with crises, because it was understood that Congress couldn't move quickly enough to deal with sudden supply issues. One thing that happened was the investments into grid upgrades created a demand shock, and transformer pricing and timelines surged upwards. So at that point the President invoked the DPA and used a chunk of IRA funding to try to unsnarl the transformer pipeline so the rest of the project could proceed. Then Trump (for basically arbitrary reasons) decided to screw it up. (He's also screwed it up in ways that probably just plain violate the law, but he doesn't care about that either -- which is why "run policy purely from the Legislative branch" doesn't fix any of this.)
Given the context -- a broad law duly passed by the slower legislative branch, a crisis dealt with (according to the law) by the more nimble Executive branch -- I am struggling to make your criticism sound reasonable, even with the absolute maximal dose of charity. This is basically the kind of governance that we want a functioning Legislative and Executive branch to engage in; it was screwed up on purpose; and your proposed solution/excuse does not produce better outcomes.
> I am struggling to make your criticism sound reasonable
It's pretty straightforward...
> but did give some latitude to the President to deal with crises
All the President needs to do is say it's not a crisis. If you want it to stick past the current administration, pass a law after the crisis.
Anything that's at the discretion of the executive is at the desretion of the executive. I'm not saying it's great or smart but there's zero reason to be surprised and I'll not be surprised when a bunch of Trump's orders get reversed too.
You’re generalising from some criminals to an entire civilian population. The parent generalized from military to military. There’s a slight difference in the two.
Also, remember that it was the US who declared “no quarter”, not the Iranians.
We gotta imagine a few steps further in time and toss in some game-theory.
Imagine a big swing-state split between Yellow and Purple parties. It's legislature is controlled by Yellow, and they pull a sneaky: They partition into 10x Small Yellow states (5% pop each) and one Big Purple state (50% pop) Let's also assume the whole effort somehow evaded requirements in the state's constitution, referendums, etc.
At first glance, you might think Yellow has "won" by adding more/safer seats on the federal level, right?
Except now the folks in Big Purple are kinda pissed, and they control themselves now. They could choose to split again, leaving things as 10x Small Yellow and 10x Small Blue. That puts the partisan balance is back at square one, except for a shit-ton of disruption and pain and a bunch of Yellow politicians are out of a job. So did they really win? Knowing the likely outcome, would they have tried anyway?
In short, it's very different from district gerrymandering. For starters, every division becomes independent, and it won't even happen if residents are asking tough questions like "Then how do I get my water from the river!?" It'll be a very slow and very deliberate process stretched across multiple election cycles.
I am theoretically eligible to get 60% of my income for 3 months after losing my job, while I look for my new job. But if I actually try to claim that, they demand so many documents and meetings that it's not actually practical to receive that benefit. The only people who can receive benefits are the people who are experts at navigating the benefit system.
For instance, if you do not file a certain form on a certain exact day, then your benefits will not start until 3 months after you became unemployed. That is exactly the same time period this unemployment insurance benefit normally covers. By that time you should already have a job anyway and they will ask you to explain why you couldn't get a job in 3 months, since the benefit normally only covers 3 months.
Nobody will tell you how to navigate this. Nobody will tell you the correct form to fill out on the correct day. If you don't already know the arcane rules, you don't get the money. This is how most European social benefits work. They aren't actually provided to normal people.
There is lot of investment going in to fanning those flames - just look at the way the edges of this are discussed in the Epstein files.
Here in the UK, it is amazing to follow just how much money has been pumped into the various 'right of the Conservatives' parties for the last 15 years, while it might seem like a grass roots movement, the majority of the cash has been coming from those with vast wealth inside and outside the UK.
Probably better that they get their medication rather than waiting for an appointment if it’s keeping them from being psychotic or otherwise causing harm or being harmed.
If it keeps bipolar people on their meds, it will make the world better and safer, but also, those meds should just be able to be setup as "always fill this" in a saner system.
I'm aware that it happened. You seem under the impression that this is some kind of mass exodus based on people you know.
Uninstalls up 300%! What's the baseline?
> downloads fell 13% on day one and a further 5% the next day
Dramatic falloff of new downloads after one day (still plenty of new downloads). Day 3 was likely negligible and, I bet, it was back to normal less than a week after when the story left the news cycle.
> 1.5 million users joined the QuitGPT boycott within days
That's both very few people and a completely meaningless number since all it requires is checking a box. Did anyone verify they were actually human?
> Claude rose to #1 most downloaded app in the App Store and US usage rose by 51% [2].
> New customers are now choosing Claude over OpenAI 70% of the time [1].
Which has nothing to do with cancellations.
> And much more. I think it was just your bubble that didn’t cancel it.
Most people in my bubble have no idea any of this happened and are just using free chatgpt tier if they use it at all. That seems much more representative given your provided statistics of the 1.5m person boycott.
I didn't say that, I just brought that up to contrast it to yours.
The strongest part of my argument goes with your cited 1.5m number. That's not a lot of people, especially when you consider the signing of a petition requires no other action than signing and has no way to verify the signing.
I'm just not seeing how any of this harmed OpenAI more than a government contract helps.
I am right and I suspect you know it... you just don't like the way it makes you feel. Hence your focus on vibes and ad hominums rather than reason.
It is self evident that moderm science is too complex for the average person to understand, and fifty percent of us are less intelligent than even that.
> It is self evident that moderm science is too complex for the average person to understand, and fifty percent of us are less intelligent than even that.
I think you're grossly overestimating the complexity of most modern science outside of physics and mathematics (and computing, as an intersection of the two).
Good science is actually pretty easy to explain most of the time. It may take a long time to become a domain expert thst can perform novel research in a field but it it's well within the understanding of most people to have a single topic explained to them by an expert.
In fact, that very thing happens in courtrooms all the time.
Your condescending attitude is why people don't trust authorities and with good reason. If you can't help people understand science, it's you that doesn't understand it.
Furthermore, I hope you realize how close your "self-evident" logic is to a lot of extremely gross and genocidal ideologies of the past and present.
I originally wrote a long winded response to this, but I deleted it. The more I think about your perspective the more I realize that though I disagree, it is also very reasonable of you to believe the way you do and I can respect that.
The truth is that we're both likely right to some extent, and wrong to some extent.
I now think that maybe there is no hard and fast rule one can apply to every situation to decide when one should decide for themself or just trust the experts. The optimal solution likely varies greatly depending on the specifics of the given situation, and it's very reasonable that we would have two very different takes about it.
There is a kind of rubrik I use on stuff like this. If LLMs are discovering new math, why have I only read one or two articles where it's happening? Wouldn't it be happening with regularity?
The most obvious example of this thinking is, if LLMs are replacing developers, why us open ai still hiring?
I can only say that at family meetings, I hear people talk about contracting with a shop that used to have 4 web designers, but now it's 1 guy, delivering 4x faster than before.
I don't know how true this is going to be, at least in the short term. The big providers are likely running at a loss and, as models have gotten better, they've also crept up in price as well.
They/you are counting on them hitting a point where it is actually cheap for the value provided (after they take some off the top) but I don't see that as inevitable before these companies go under or pivot into much more specialized tools for big clients.
It's not clear to me that AI code is cheaper than human code (of equal functionality).
reply