dogprez

I'm not trying to detract from the OP's point but if the author turned the lens they are using to evaluate whether AI videos are harmful or not onto the videos one usually encountered on the internet pre-AI videos, I think they would find most internet videos are harmful by those same metrics. It's propaganda, rage-baiting, trying to manipulate you into buying something, etc. It's no wonder that's the sort of content we see being generated.

Others pointed out the value of silence, but I just wanted to say it saddens me when humanity is misclassified as inefficiency. The other day Sam Altman made a jest about how much energy is wasted by people saying "thanks" to chatgpt. The corollary is how much human energy is wasted on humans saying thanks to each other. When making a judgement about inefficiency one is making a judgement on what is valuable, a very biased judgement that isn't necessarily aligned with what makes us thrive. =) (<-- a wasteful smiley)

What makes it an "envolved" ecs?

I think it's a good point and I experienced the same thing when playing with SDL3 the other day. So even established languages with new API's can be problematic.

However, I had a different takeaway when playing with Rust+AI. Having a language that has strict compile-time checks gave me more confidence in the code the AI was producing.

I did see Cursor get in an infinite loop where it couldn't solve a borrow checker problem and it eventually asked me for help. I prefer that to burying a bug.

I tried that with work. I created an account where I can just follow a few things related to my job. The problem is that reddit will start showing you things you didn't subscribe to. It's a battle to keep them at bay. If you look at my work account feed it's all mycology, bad tattoos, what-is-this-thing. I never subscribed to any of them. Yea, they are interesting but that's not what I wanted or need at work.

You're right, but I don't think giving a dollar to gifted programs instead of intervention for struggling kids solves that problem. In fact if a kid is gifted but is struggling because of household issues, again, the money is better spent on struggling kids and they'll benefit from it.

There are a lot of reasons a kid may be struggling in school and it doesn't mean they are dumb or their future is worthless, as your hypothetical kids shows. I live in an area with one of the top public schools in America, they have a well funded gifted program. I know several parents whose dyslexic children are not getting the support they need.

I appreciate what you are trying say. I'm having a hard time believing it because I was one of those kids. The only thing my parents gave me was access to books, technology, love and free time. They possessed zero experience in engineering or technology, gave zero guidance. In fact they told me I was wasting my time being on the computer so much. I think people like to inject themselves as some sort of necessary mentor but gifted kids are gifted.

> Or by disrupting the rest of the class.

Kids that are struggling in class can be just as disruptive.

> Gifted kids in a single stream classroom need to learn to play dumb or become a social pariah.

Aka learn to function in society?

Here's my story from the other side. I have one gifted child and one child with dyslexia, but doesn't qualify for special education. My school district has a gifted program that is a whole separate school, but they have a handful of specialists to help kids struggling to read. They are shared across the grades and hard to get assigned. One of them has to actually be paid for by the PTSA since the district won't pay for it. That's messed up.

It's just the truth. Look at the boeing dreamliner failures. Hundreds of smart people doing a bang up job. It just took one a few missteps to jeopardize the whole production and peoples lives.

I don't believe it. Almost every kid in America has access to the internet, a public library and a teacher. How many don't have access to any of those? That's a different problem.

> This is definitely not true for poorer gifted students:

I don't think that's as big of an issue because kids have access to teachers, libraries and the internet.

> Gathering gifted kids together, instead of bunching them with lowest common denominators, can result in lifelong friendships.

Kid's together creates the opportunity for friendships. Focusing too much on academics at a young age will miss key milestones for social development. It's particularly acute for high functioning autistic kids.

She makes some good points, but my take is that we in the 21st century are more bound to the success of our weakest links. Our world has become so complicated, one small mistake can have dire consequences. So, it's the state's priority to spend its limited resources helping those struggling to tread water. Gifted children will get the stimulus they need at home via independent study or from their family. I know since I gave myself an almost complete college education in computer science before I graduated from high school. Splitting gifted kids apart can warp them socially for life too.

> If anything, it appears that neural networks are far further along than any quantum mechanism for approximating whatever "consciousness" actually is? And neural networks are absolutely not quantum mechanical.

Neural networks are also way less power efficient. Quantum computing allows us to calculate things that would take a lot of power or time to calculate (not calculate things that are impossible). If one could create consciousness with classical physics it wouldn't prove anything about how the human brain works. In fact if it was wildly less power efficient it might even suggest non-classical physics in the brain.

> happens more at runtime

Bingo, that's the difference. That's why I said "compile-time memory safety". This is what Rust gives you for your trouble, zero (runtime) cost for memory safety.