bored-at-work

Listen man, if you try to take the whole world in at once, it's going to overwhelm you.

You need to find meaning in what's immediately around you. Disconnect from the internet a little. Stop doomscrolling. Connect with your friends and family. Touch grass. It sounds trite, but it's all we can really do in these uncertain times. Just try to find something meaningful to you, something that keeps you going, and try to make yourself and those around you happy. Be kind. That's all anyone can ask of anyone else.

I'm not saying there isn't space to worry about the big stuff, and you should definitely get informed and make a difference where you can, but trying to do it all at once at the same time is just going to burn you out. Leave yourself room to enjoy your life, however you can.

>YOLO Linux replaces the command line with a conversational AI agent that manages every aspect of your system. No shell. No scripts. Just ask.

yeah i'm not handing control of my entire system to an AI agent, no thank you

Given that AI CEOs are in the habit of frequently lying about what frontier AI can do, it's hard to get a good grasp either way.

We can estimate from our hands-on experience and go from there, but very few people even have acess to the latest models. Some of the stuff I've read makes it sound like they're technically impressive but not all that useful in practical scenarios.

> It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix.

That's the fun part, all languages are a mix of other languages that came before them. English borrows heavily from French, which borrows heavily from Latin, which was partially inspired by Greek which... This isn't a problem, necessarily. It's just how language works and evolves, and while it can lead to some ambiguity and confusion, it can also be a doorway to learning (if you already know french, the many english words that are based on french will be easier for you to grasp, giving you a foothold to work off of)

I find it interesting that you speak of "the best we can do" or that a constructed language could be "better" than natural languages.

By what metrics would you measure a language as being better than any other? In other words, when you envision the "best language", what does it look like? What would it accomplish that natural languages can't?

(in case my tone isn't clear, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to be combative or anything like that, look forward to hearing back from you)

Well, for starters, there is no such thing as a language that is 100% scientific and 0% political. Even in constructed languages, specially one made by AI.

What AI does is aggregate its training data and predict next responses based on training. As a result, it's choices on what to keep and what to exclude from the language would be coloured by the bias of the training data, a bias we have seen has ideological motivations, even if unintended.

It is an illusion to think of AI as we know them today as being without bias and without ideology.

Furthermore, the English language's place as the de-facto international language of the western world is a matter of both historical relevance (the influence of the late British Empire) and convenience. A newly constructed language, even one made purposefully to that end by AI, would be neither historically relevant nor convenient. This is much the same issue that Esperanto, humanity's attempt at a new lingua franca, ran into. Esperanto is easy to learn and easy to speak, and yet it is neither historically relevant nor convenient to learn and use, and as such is relegated, like most other conlangs, to relative obscurity and niche uses.

If you want to talk science, I suggest picking up some linguistics, which is a hardcore science even if most people don't think of it as such. I would recommend starting with Saussure's lectures, and then studying some of Noam Chomsky's early work, and from there the world is your oyster. It is a legitimately incredible field and it saddens me a bit that it gets understudied, specially in today's world where communication is so important, perhaps more than it has ever been before.

I can think of a few answers for this.

1. AI produces a lot of code but very few releases. There have been a lot of articles about how AI has increased code output, but the number of releases on Github for example hasn't increased with the higher coding output. That is because the human review process and shipping is still a bottleneck, and more code doesn't always necessarily mean better software.

2. Which brings me to the next point: AI might have made (arguably) the coding skill more available, but design skills are harder to teach, harder to emulate, and impossible for the AI. Even with all the best AI out there, if you're a poor designer, you won't make a good system. Bad systems don't get hyped up, and as such you won't hear about them.

3. Finally, marketing. Microsoft is a big as it is because it spends billions every year on marketing. Smaller teams guiding AI to make software on the cheap will never be able to compete. You won't hear about them because your company's team in charge of purchasing software is flooded with Microsoft adverts. If not Microsoft, then it'll be the next largest competitor. And so on and so forth. We're not seeing alternatives popping up largely because the people involved in purchasing software are usually not too concerned with finding out the best, they'll take the path of least resistance and buy whatever is cheaper and easier to find. Also there's a question of support, Microsoft Office may be horrible, but if you have a problem with it, you can look at official microsoft documentation or call Microsoft yourself for help. Smaller teams likely won't have the customer support teams to enable large enterprises to use the software effectively.