kajumix

AI exposes the Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap), and amplifies it much more, and anything good is drowned out. Most of human-generated popular music is slop. Most of human generated code is buggy, unmaintainable and full of debt. Social media and youtube have always been dominated by click-bait and mediocre time-wasting crap.

The struggle is necessary to grow, sure. But we're free to choose and upgrade our struggles. After calculators and then computers, struggle in math levelled up.

So even if the improvements continue to accelerate, even when you get to a point when an agent not just codes but also designs, optimizes for complexity and maintainability, you don't think software engineering as a human discipline gets deleted?

Is reward hacking really as unsolvable as they claim?

Most interesting novel ideas originate at the intersection of multiple disciplines. Profitable trades could be found in the biomedicine sector when the knowledge of biomedicine and finance are combined. That's where I see LLMs shining because they span disciplines way more than any human can. Once we figure out a way to have them combine ideas (similar to how Gwern is suggesting), there will be, I suspect, a flood of novel and interesting ideas, inconceivable with humans.

Your suggestion basically amounts to: digitize and centralize welfare. There are already electronic cards for food. If the money is drawn directly from the central bank as credit instead of from the state welfare fund, it won't make it any more efficient. In fact any experimentation among states will disappear. Also, if CBDCs become a thing, you could see a slow slide into behavior control. What people eat, and where they live becomes a concern for the central bank, because they get to decide who the approved vendors are for those things. "Central" anything is a design smell in most cases.

Getting rid of cash also requires proper paper work and identification so you can sign up for the CBDC wallet. In that case you're excluding the very people from the system who need it the most.

If it's not for _everyone_ it's not _universal_ basic income. It's just welfare for poor in that case, and that's already very common

it's a good question. what would true abundance look like? I can't wait to find out

you may not need to buy a box of cereal or a vacuum cleaner, but maybe a flight to moon, or a humanoid companion? products move up a level

Once he replaces everyone with robots, and all the factories do the same, people will get stuff at home for watching ads.

In neighborhoods with better school districts, home prices and rents are higher in proportion to the demand people have for better schools, creating de facto segregation based on income, and by your logic, by race too.

Why do you imply that the fun, constructive environment for homeschooling a long shot, but the weird religious or abusive environment is more of the norm?

Most CEOs, yes. But founder CEOs normally don't care about stock price that much. Zuck turned down yahoo, remember. Bezos kept taking losses in Amazon in the beginning for the sake of future growth despite the stock being punished so hard. Steve Jobs was like that too. Your cynicism is misguided. VR is a very long call.

Do you realize most enterprise coders are writing just simple CRUD applications?

Also, I'd expect he cares very little about the stock price. He turned down Yahoo's offer when it must have seemed so lucrative