bwestergard

What is the unit for productivity here, though? Time required to complete this one task, which was never attempted before and never will be again? That's fine, but economically uninteresting.

Ultimately, the economic analysis needs to use monetary units. How much faster can return on investment be realized, and at what scale? This analysis has proven elusive because people believe that the very definition, not just the execution, of a task can be delegated to an LLM (which in some trivial sense must be true because means and ends are never sharply distinguished).

The article states that she was seeing a doctor regularly.

Is that going to be mathematically useful?

I think the OPs argument (which I am not endorsing) is that they in fact enjoy a higher quality of life even if their "standard of living" (measured in purchasing power) is higher.

The premise here are essentially those of logical atomism and the unified science movement. The authors would do well to learn about why those projects were abandoned.

It does very poorly in detecting Dutch vs. German for this Flemish-accented speaker.

"The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe." - Douglas Adams

When the test code "looks like a mess", how do you get assurance it is testing the right properties?

Like you, I've found that LLMs can improve test coverage by decreasing the amount of developer time spent writing tests. But generally, it takes a lot of manual work to set up the initial testing framework, and even then, a lot of vigilance to ensure that what is actually tested corresponds to the description of the test.

Their alternative explanation seems, uh, pretty sensible to me?

"On the other hand, cybersecurity practitioners have largely viewed these incidents as consequences of companies failing to adopt basic security precautions. They do not see the incidents as a sign of AI reaching a new milestone in cybersecurity. This is also the dominant reaction in the tech community outside AI, which has largely treated the incidents as a result of ineptitude and negligence by AI companies."

"People weren't their strongest even when most did manual labor."

Is there good historical data on some measure of strength across representative populations over time in the modern era? I'm doubtful.

We do know that the introduction of agriculture diminished strength:

"Bone mass was around 20% higher in the foragers - the equivalent to what an average person would lose after three months of weightlessness in space.

After ruling out diet differences and changes in body size as possible causes, researchers have concluded that reductions in physical activity are the root cause of degradation in human bone strength across millennia."

cam.ac.uk/research/news/hunter-gatherer-past-shows-our-fragile-bones-result-from-physical-inactivity-since-invention-of