daishi55

Haha nope. It’s the opposite actually. They need to run candidates willing to say things that I agree with in order for me to vote for them.

Careful, they might ban you!

Maybe but are those limitations more or less onerous than the current requirements to contribute to scientific research? It remains to be seen I think.

When you can equally reasonably make the opposite argument - that AI is going to open up scientific exploration and contribution to a wider range of participants than ever before - then I think it’s a sign that nobody has any idea what’s going to happen and spending time making either claim is probably pointless until we have more data.

Gosh, it’s really so sad what has happened to you. Totally brainwashed.

E: oh it’s a 1 day old account. Sad troll.

Sorry, are you suggesting that the CIA hasn’t done its best to prevent left-wing governments from succeeding in many cases? Because that would be very silly and ahistorical.

I have never seen anything like this. What kind of backdoors did it add to your code?

Is there any evidence though? Of the stolen credit cards being used by deepseek? You said there was “actual evidence”, what is it?

For any reason or no reason? I mean, that’s kind of the point I’m making. Countries disagree and have conflicts all the time. No country should be enabled to unilaterally cut off another’s internet in such cases

I don’t think that one country should get to unilaterally decide whether another country gets internet, no.

> I’ve now applied for over 3 dozen jobs and I’ve heard back from 24 of them with a rejection

Sorry is this a troll? Go check out the SWE subreddits, people are sending out 1000s of applications before they get something.

It’s CPC not CCP, and it’s not like I trust them specifically, but they’ve certainly done less to make me distrust them than my government (USA).

I agree it makes sense in the context of warning people not to short something. But what I am replying to is a person using it generally, not in the context of shorting, to just say “it only looks like I’m wrong because everyone else is crazy and irrational right now, but they’ll come around eventually”. Not exactly a rigorous argument.

> the market can stay gullible, for longer than you stay solvent.

This is essentially just what people say when current reality is different from what they want it to be. Sort of an unfalsifiable escape hatch response to “well observable reality contradicts your claim”

> Don't think the 0.2% really are in agreement that "large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt".

If you are at the top of field with unlimited access to the best (public) models then yes, you will agree that this is the case.

> The divide seems to be between people who think you may need to understand the codebase for maintenance, potential future token costs, optimisation, code erosion & being wary of the assumptions/mistakes that they have seen LLMs make, and people who don't review code and are confident that the AI has made no mistakes and will be available for next-to-nothing forever.

This is not the real divide, it’s the divide you want to exist. The real divide is something along the lines of intellectual curiosity, capability, and confidence.

> if/when they break things

Idk man. I’m one of those guys who “doesn’t write code anymore” since early this year. Nothing is breaking. If anything the chance of things breaking is shrinking dramatically, with both the enormous growth in tooling to support agentic software development (where I work, this mainly really good AI code reviews that catch so much more than human reviewers ever could), and the improvements in the models themselves.

Sorry, but the fantasy of all this coming crashing down is just never going to happen. This is just how it is now, and all the structures will continue to adapt to support it even better.