abernard1

I will provide a contrary opinion.

The internet has made available a wide array of facts. And combined with needing to double-check the frequently incorrect hallucinations of AI, this set of facts has a devastating, world-altering effect on the white collar professional class.

And cognitive dissonance is the only retreat; the tyranny of reality is too much to bear.

I am indifferent to whether or not my message is well-received. It is true.

And also because the people making the arguments for why they should force people to pay for their jobs are indifferent as well. I take joy in knowing that reality is reality, men are men, women are women, and reality is objective and indifferent to subjective voting patterns.

You can simply overlay that Nate Silver chart in the other post with DSA voting and "bullshit jobs." It's the same exact people.

I would like to also point out it was the "Occupy Wall Street" left who most championed criticism of said bullshit jobs. A true irony.

I don't know. Is it irrelevant?

Is it interesting that all these "democracies" around the world have persistent speech bans? When someone says something they don't like?

I seem to have a recollection of flipping through HN for a decade or so and people talking about all the meanie-pants who want people to be able to speak freely, even if it hurts people's feelings and might not be endorsed by the elected government.

> Democracy is a broad term describing all forms of government where power is granted by the people

No. It's not. I encourage you to read the quite enlightening treatment of democracies in the Federalist Papers. And Greece's government was nothing like Rome. If there is a conflation there, it is one largely created by America.

Which in its own right is interesting. What is interesting about the longest-running continuous constitutional government in history (America)?

John Adams wrote that as a reason why the United States is not a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. It's a consistent theme throughout the Federalist Papers.

Individual States and localities have elements of democracy, but the US—built upon knowledge of Rome—is not.

The United States of America is the second iteration of American government, after the one that failed in 1787. The arguments leading up to the 1789 Constitution are quite explicit around why democracies don't work. America is a nation of nations, which is why "these United States" as a plural term was used frequently until after the Civil War, when having it be a singular concept once-and-for-all was of paramount importance.

That said, this is ban is clearly a restriction on freedom of expression, and highly un-American.

One day, AI will be able to provide midwit analyses like this.

Until that day, we can just say what we all know: 1) AI will absolutely decimate white-collar office jobs in the future, 2) composition of the workplace will change (more women will elect not to participate), and 3) we're in a capital boom where both successful and incompetent spending on AI occurred.

I suspect the reason people are hesitant to admit the obviousness of the future reality of white collar job loss (or replacement at the very least) is ego.

And I suspect that will be the last thing to finally implode, with interesting and positive social consequences.

> It is not possible one of their extraordinarily high paid engineers did not know how to deploy an airgapped environment for the models to run in.

It is, in fact, possible.

Do you not remember 2022-2023 when the air was singing with the sounds of young engineers in San Francisco elated they were creating an AI god?

And now a couple years later we're supposed to pretend they're competent?

Sorry. I've been in the tech industry a long time. There's a lot of incompetence. The margins provided by software allow a level of endemic incompetence that would simply not be possible in other industries.

I suspect bailouts will be off the table. Simply because the people who support OpenAI and the tech industry are on the same side of the political aisle as the people protesting data centers.

"Big Tech" as a pejorative started on the Right. That never changed.

Remember the hubbub about companies having "free speech" while they deplatformed and censored critics? That never sat well with a certain group of people. And they're the kind of people with long memories, that might have guests entertained as a visible sign of submission, and not as friends.

The more interesting revelation will be if certain persons can psychologically come to admit the people they are against are politically aligned with them, and their opponents are more intelligent than they are willing to let on.

Agreed. Specs are more important than ever. Constraints: types, contracts, protocols, schemas, APIs and such are what ground the boundaries of systems.

Without them, code drift is a guarantee.

Does anyone trust that a set of human sentences typed into a box is more reliable and precise than objectively exact descriptions of data?

This is not to diminish the utility of these code factories. But surely, if anything provides resistance to drift, it's codebase consistency, standards, and things which must objectively be true for the software to function.

What happens when the AI god doesn't appear, and these models plateau in regimes supportable with high-end laptops?

It is.

A predictable reset schedule with refinancing ("valuations"). Loose money leading to debt obligations to be paid in the future. Circular financing.

And what's funny, is it's precisely the off-book debt that will make the compression happen slowly. There's no bailouts this time.

The entirety of "agents" and tool calls is a process of combining LLMs to get better results. Is it the same LLM in many cases? Yes. But it doesn't have to be.

It's the natural move that happened after people realized you couldn't throw away half a century of AI research.

Most of these focus on costs. But it is simply the case that the one-shot output did not scale for harder problems on workflows.

Ah. But which decisionmakers?

Would it be the ones that tried to backdoor SSL and encryption in the 90s?

Would it be the ones who argued for censoring speech on social platforms?

Do those individuals in both cases share the same political ideology as the Bay Area?

I'll provide a counter thought experiment. What if, a certain politician whose campaign was derailed by people who censored him and kicked him off every tech platform simultaneously... thought it would be very funny to "commoditize his complement"?