Xelynega

Are those not the exact same workflows, just replacing "I spent time learning" with claude?

I find that if you don't skip the learning step, you can then use the tool more efficiently(e.x. you learn to measure twice and verify so you can iterate in 1-2 prints instead of 3-4)

It's also known as "commodification of labour", and AI is just the latest and greatest tool to do it.

Luddites complained that the trajectory of technology was to allow less skilled workers to mass produce goods via machines owned by factory owners, as opposed to helping skilled workers build up and use their skills while passing them on.

Now we have a lot of money and time focused on LLMs owned by a few companies, making it easier for them to monetize low skill labour(prompting versus art/research/artisanry)

Why don't we first assume OpenAI can create a cold fusion reactor and then give them a trillion dollars to get it done?

That's not how namespacing works though, is it?

Getting UUID 'A' from app 'X' is easily distinguishable from UUID 'A' from app 'Y'.

You're glossing over the fact that they assumed youtube would want to assign a UUID to each pixel in a 4k@60fps video as the use case that this would fail for...

I don't think they're discounting that distrust can be legitimate, they're questioning whether it's useful to distrust somebody when it's not your job to micromanage them or they're providing adequate output.

Going a step further, I live in a reality where you can train most people against phishing attacks like that.

How accurate is the comparison if LLMs can't recover from phishing attacks like that and become more resilient?

Are you not worried that anthropomorphizing them will lead to misinterpreting the failure modes by attributing them to human characteristics, when the failures might not be caused in the same way at all?

Why anthropomorphize if not to dismiss the actual reasons? If the reasons have explanations that can be tied to reality why do we need the fiction?

> But I would be pretty irritated if the government stepped in and mandated they make my searches public and linkable to me.

Who is calling for this? Are you perhaps taking an absolutist view where "not destroying evidence" is the same as "mandated they make my searches public and linkable to me"? That's quite ridiculous.

I don't understand your logic. Should security reports never be published that say "hash the password before storing it in the DB". Boring research is boring most of the time, that doesn't make it unimportant, no?

One of the things I'm not looking forward to with people "just throwing it through an LLM for a final pass" is the loss of individual voice.

Everything is starting to sound the same, and it's becoming monotonous

Yea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than anything

How is compliance as written impossible?

Why?