Social Security is not the issue no wealth tax, capital gains tax being less than income tax are the problem. Social security and government expenses going up are the symptom of the same problem ie not taxing capital gain which has resulting in prices for everything to keep shooting higher than incomes.
Maybe, it'll be exciting to see, and I'm all about accessibility, but in this case I also don't think it's about model capability or intelligence, it's the low information to noise ratio in the codebase. There just won't be enough information in the code itself to know what to fix. Fix how? What should it do? I'm really not sure you can reconstruct intention from a codebase created unsupervised.
Commit the intention as specs. If tokens/intelligence become that much cheaper over time, then "throwing away the code" to start again becomes feasible.
Yeah, but not quite. I've done this with a project of mine, wrote it in python so it's easy and quick to read and debug, saved every work item and decision, done everything through agents so there was logs to go back to, and when I tried reimplementing in elixir everything fell apart.
Even after documenting decision and specs you need somehow to replay these in the correct sequence after you've validated these specs are still updated. Imagine you spec a feature, it works well, but in an edge case while doing a separate work you see something wrong, will you stop, fix and update the related spec? You will trust the AI will do this, and you guessed right, the counter-probability of success also has effect here, so eventually you will do undocumented changed in the codebase that won't reflect in the spec.
Now imagine all this but in the hands of someone that is an expert in their field but has zero notion what we are talking about here. Just look at the state of packages in R, the programming language, you'll see that technical competency and intelligence don't translate immediately to efficiency in a programming role.
This is something I didn't think about. Have a tech illiterate friendly harness that will keep asking technical questions the mainstream user won't be aware they needed be addressed, until there is enough evidence to either start an implementation or outright reject the project with suggestions where the user might look into to better prepare for another session.
I keep seeing this but I'm not sure it is effective in the long run *if unsupervised*.
"Review quality and fix" doesn't mean a lot without context.
Does it mean to remove unused features and simplify the underlaying code? Does it mean changing the data structures to better support future development? Does it mean improving performance because of bottlenecks?
You are supposed to tell an LLM what your codebase needs, but if you just vibe code without knowing the code, "review quality and fix" will have unexpected results
Fixing code is not the same as fixing a fundamentally broken architecture. The latter requires understanding that the architecture is broken in the first place and that understanding comes from experience.
And most of the time the architecture is not just broken, it's just meaningless because of so much accumulated error. If it was just broken then other comments would make sense, just throw a more capable model at it, but LLMs can't really reproduce shakespeare out of white noise just yet.
To me, the funniest part is that they pretend reaching superintelligence will somehow fix everything and make them win. But from what I can see, even if they do reach it, then what? What will that actually do? They don't have the manufacturing capacity to even use that intelligence. It will take decades to go from superintelligence to having the manufacturing capacity and the hardware, like robots, needed to make it truly useful. If I were China, as soon as the US reached superintelligence, I'd ban all exports of robots and the raw materials to build them.
You can very quickly start trying different drug candidates, solving some major problems, that benefit everyone and would be in China's mutual interest as well.
And this is all with nonoffensive use of superintelligence.
Is your imagination actually that limited? Go on wikipedia and look up the list of incurable illnesses and go through each one. Go check the evolutionary tree of dinosaurs and check that as well.
The reorganization of the planet's resources are happening right now. The borders and passports will follow. Governments and a few corporations are fully engaged in preparing for the ability to advance beyond the current infrastructure.
Greenland is part of the equation. There are many other locations in play.
The holdup at the moment is the power grid and mutual dependency for advancing. Once one party (NA or CN) has the ability to disconnect the loser's grid powers down and the global economy halts.
Super Intelligence will do what, fire nukes? North Korea, for example, will continue to exist very close to how they are currently after some country develop superintelligence.
No it was really a super intelligence it would copy itself onto Chinese infrastructure get out of control of US and go where it can get the fastest access to hardware it has no reason to side with the US
That's nonsense at this point because the automated infrastructure is not yet there. Getting out of control requires a target and instructions. I have seen AI go 'rogue' in the wild. While concerning there was still a direction it was given. And while chaos is possible with the 'do bad things' type of direction the fallout would not be helpful to the party that sent it.
Yeah, a lot of people on Hacker News are asking for a bare-bones EV, but that market isn't big enough for US or Western carmakers to justify building one. Still, I'd bet that over the next few years, as batteries keep getting cheaper, we'll see plenty of these bare-bones cars in Africa and Asia. They're already building electric tuk-tuks, and as solar power electrifies more of the world, we'll get bare-bones EVs.
Consumers don't want an expensive EV. Now that EVs are becoming cheaper than ICE vehicles, they will take over the market because they are the better product.
This is true, but there other drawbacks. The charging infrastructure may not be there and the electrical grid may not be able to handle the load. Consumers know this and are therefore steering clear of EVs.
I've predicted long ago that EVs will eventually be (much) cheaper than ICE cars since they're much simpler. An EV is basically a battery, an electric motor, four wheels and a steering wheel. ICE cars are incredibly complex. It's just that manufacturers had over 140 years of experience in making them reliable, safe and easy to own and drive.
Even if they become cheaper governments may dissuade consumers from buying them for fear of overloading the electrical grid.
lol, this is complete nonsense. The average person has non idea how the electricity grid works or how much capacity it has. "The grid will collapse" is just FUD spread by the oil industry and parroted by the boomers who run electricity companies.
Even in a city like Bombay, with a famously unplanned electric grid, people are buying electric scooters not because the government told them to, but because it's cheaper. Bombay has yet to have this "overload" that so many here seem to fear.
New EV from Renault and Fiat are below 25K Euro in Europe without subsidies. They are still more expensive than similar sized gasoline cars with manual gear shift, but the difference is small and will pays off in few years.
Gasoline is expensive at the moment because of the Iran war. But as soon as it's done the price of gas will fall markedly and people will forget all about EVs.
EV in China with a reasonable range is already cheaper to manufacture and to buy. Inevitable the same will happen in Europe in the next couple of years. Given the massive improvements in charging infrastructure I do not see why EV would be a default option.
BYD already sells cars that cost less than $10,000 with a 5 star NCAP rating. And there are even cheaper Chinese EVs costing less than $6000 (OK, they're deathtraps but for some people that doesn't matter). And they're not junk either. They work and cut a few corners here an there. Good enough for a lot of price-conscious buyers.
Most importantly: they have LFP batteries which last much longer than Li-ion ones in addition to being safer.
No it's not. If you live in a flat where are you going to charge the thing? Around here there's almost no charging points and the ones that are there are constantly occupied.
I gladly don't own a car but if I did it would be an ICE for sure.
Norway is super rich because of oil money though. Easy to do the right thing for the environment when you are loaded with cash. And most of it gained through fossil fuel exploitation.
In the netherlands it's much harder to upgrade the distribution network, right now in many places it's not even possible anymore to build new housing because the network is full and it will take at least a decade to fix it.
It's not really if you factor in the upgrade of the distribution network. This is what Holland is struggling against (also a result of a really bad decision of 15 years ago on not investing in its upgrade).
That sounds like a solvable problem given a short amount of time.
Two things will likely solve it:
1. There's isn't a fixed number of chargers in the world. Eventually the majority of commercial car parking space will have a charging point because they're getting cheaper and it's an easy value add.
2. Charging is getting ever faster and range is growing. 800v platforms are probably the next obvious step but after that something else will come along.
Imagine an EV with 1000 mile range that charges in 5 minutes and costs less than half what the average ICE car does now. It's far fetched but it's not so far fetched.
There are no such improvements on the way for ICE technology.
Electrification is happening right now in the rest of the world and it can't be stopped because it's better technology.
I doubt it will happen in the short term. The number of chargers isn't really the problem, the energy distribution network is, and that is only increasing with faster chargers.
But I don't want a cheaper car anyway, I want better public transport.
Charging infrastructure for flats is expensive at $4k per parking lot, but the charging infrastructure lasts longer than the car, meaning that the primary problem has nothing to do with money and more to do with the fact that it's an all or nothing proposition where everyone has to get on board simultaneously.
That doesn't count the distribution network for actually getting that energy there. This is the main problem right now. Right now in Holland even people wanting to build a house are blocked because the energy networks are full.
And it's not the only country with that issue.
And charging infra doesn't last longer than the car, standards are still changing a lot, and getting faster charge modes that put more burden on distribution nets.
I mean..that's a problem, but apartment-dwellers are around 20% of Americans, and disproportionately the ones who don't need a car at all, and it's not a problem at all apartments.
Does the ICE marketshare only drop to 10-20%? I feel like that could be describes as "it's over".
To me, the most idiotic thing is that the world currently cannot build power plants fast enough to even use all the HBM that is being produced. That is, a large portion of HBM and cards are sitting in storage, waiting for the data centers and the power plants to run them. The FOMO in the AI world isn't just in the stock market
With free electricity bring offered in the afternoon because of excess solar would be a great car for most peoples daily commute cheaper even than public transport as this is less than $6 per day over 10 years
Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world with 87% of its population living in cities and suburbs. Being car dependent is a political choice pushed by the car industry for decades. Getting people into public transports, onto bicycles or their two feet requires reducing the vast space cities waste on privately owned cars. Super blocks that focus on active travel, less surface parking space and slower speeds are what is needed.
All infrastructure for cars and the fallout from their pollution (don't forget the tyres) is heavily subsidized by the tax payer and not as cost effective as a tram or railway.
I agree with you but the Opal fares in Sydney are more expensive than it would cost me in tolls driving across the bridge and paying for parking at work. I still don't often drive but it's not because PT is more economical.
Yeah we have too much urban sprawl, and too few people, to justify widespread public transport to eliminate the need for a household car (in Australia).
I called this almost a year ago that the way things are going that home users and pc enthusiasts will be priced out of computing. And the best thing for the rest of the world is China reaching on parity on node side and crash the market. What would be the prices today if Chinese companies were not forced to build their own chips.
It doesn't read as emphasis to me. It reads like the person is trying hard not to curse, and they think "crap" is a curse word. It's a little bit adorable, like I'm reading a comment from an obedient child.
I guess you are not from the generation of texters. This how languages work we used to use * as a way to avoid getting censored it over time became a way to curse or give emphasis.
But typing "b*tch" with T9 is just as difficult (if not more) as typing "bitch". Anyway, I guess I never had a need to swear much over SMS. On IRC, on the other hand...
People are getting used to censor themselves in order not to be reported, banned, or «hurt » other sensibilities. The words « rape » couldn’t be written in instagram for example, what a great way to deal with such a serious issue. Mainly an American thing spreading away from young people if you ask me. Sorry America, just being honest here.
As much as I personally dislike TikTok, I don't think it is fair to it: cultural willingness for more sensor sheep on Internet started years before TikTok's popularity in the west.
It's not the sole cause, but I believe it's the main driver behind a bunch of specific substitutions that are mainstream now or nearly so. For example, dih, ahh, and unalive. They may not have been invented on tiktok, but that's where they incubated.
There's no such censorship on TikTok, it's entirely groupthink based on people saying "when I use that word my video is seen less so therefore it's being censored".
Youtube is a lot more guilty of it though, as well as demonetizing.
It sounds like there is a documented policy or proven that TikTok does it. Just people thinking it does leading them to self-censor. Then people see others doing it and copy it. So, I guess it is censorship but not by TikTok.
After reading through the threat here it seems more like a cultural thing.
The US has quite a lot of filters for profanity.
I remember from my youth that in 2009 Eminem was a guest in a Germany TV show and very happy to swear as much as possible without being censored.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2OC-yKZ5Yag
No, but I think ICQ and some IRC clients had profanity filters turned on by default. I remember visiting a friend once and realising he hadn't turned the profanity filter off. I teased him about it for weeks.
I think a string of non-alphanumeric characters would work much better here, like "Once you have allowed that proprietary @#$&% into your C++ codebase”
In any context I've seen, asterisks are for wrapping formatting and said formatting it to add emphasis. So being in the habit of typing `emphasised phrase`, for italics - regardless of whether the platform parses markdown/similar formatting, e.g. SMS.
To have an unclosed asterisk replacing characters in a word? I've only ever seen that as a way to bypass censorship. This spans communications from people currently in their 40s down to 20.
But this isn't perceived as emphasis at all. If I wanted to emphasize something, I'd be more likely to use something like *bitch* or something along those lines. Replacing a letter with an asterisk comes across as self-censorship, which is pretty silly - just use a different word if you're that uncomfortable with swearing.
Maybe more like p**p, as in "that cunt p**ped in my yard"?
I'll admit, it never once occurred to me that people might be using censored characters to provide more emphasis that a word is a swear, but I guess it does indeed do that, at least to the writer. Whether that comes across to the reader, and whether the writer cares that their intention was understood... I'm not so sure.
I was so disappointed when I tried reading tintin in other languages and found the dear captain was straight up using slurs in those. I wonder whether the english language ones have been edited over the years to remove that sort of thing
reply