No that’s not true at all. Humans can deal with ambiguity and operate independently. Claude can’t do that. You’re trading one “problem” for an entirely different one in this hypothetical.
Because nobody actually wants to talk about the core of the problem or how to address it. They see different, seemingly unrelated problems depending on what their priorities are. The democrats are also not on the side of actually solving the problem.
I undestand what you are saying but retirees are not what people mean when they talk about Capital. They are talking about executives, fund managers, billionaires, and so on. People who actually control much of our society. Yes many of the funds are managing the retirements of working people but that does not necessarily need to be the case, nor do those retirees have any active ownership of the companies those funds invest in.
Right but the majority of people holding significant amounts of capital is retirees or people saving for retirement. There is a small minority of people wealthy for other reasons. It doesn't really make sense to strongly associate these people to "capital" since they are a small minority of capital holders.
He is a journalist who writes a newsletter and focuses on social media, politics, and breaking news. Being away for a week in does count as disappearing in his world.
That's what I thought, too. Perhaps if you're as chronically online as he makes himself out to be, then not posting a tweet for a week feels like years. If he gained a new perspective, then great, but I'm deliberately leaving my phone in the hotel room when on vacation because nothing good ever comes out of it.
Years of experience working in Enterprise and complex systems.
And that is all on point with the criticism: while an AI can design a new language based in an existing language like Clojure, we need actual experienced people to design new interesting languages that add new constraints and make Software Engineering as a whole better. And we are also killing with AI the possibility of new people getting up to speed and becoming a future Rich Hickey.
> And we are also killing with AI the possibility of new people getting up to speed and becoming a future Rich Hickey.
Not sure I am on board with this part... I find LLMs in particular to be great teachers specifically for getting up to speed to becoming future Rich Hickey.
it is indeed a great teacher but there are times where it hallucinates and sticks to the hallucinated content even after several iteration unless human in the loop breaks it. i've wasted hours believing what LLM hallucinated.
my learnings are a lot of microdoses of things that I usually don't work on in a day to day so i don't want to spend time reading about it but yes this sort of learning would be otherwise impossible so gotta thank LLM for that.
I just misread the article, as it seems to bounce around between $nX capex for nY gigawatt hours in every paragraph.
But it looks like the investments are $80MMM for 1GW. Which, if true, would have the potential to be profitable, depending on depreciation and electricity costs.
Furry content is often deemed NSFW, and it can get annoying for it to be constantly flashed in your face.
Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world.
Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own.
There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.
I don't find anthropomorphized animals to be sexual in nature. I find it a bit strange that it's assumed most people complaining about the blog or suggesting content warnings, on the contrary, do.
The complainer is a self-proclaimed policy wonk. I am sure he knows all the corrext policies to enforce include NSFW content policies. Heck, looking at his comment history, I get the impression that he might be a policy wonk in everything.
The article contains zero content that necessitates such a warning. Your belief that it is "sexual in nature" is a misinterpretation or incorrect assumption.
reply