karahime

I think it makes sense to see it positively. If one wants a calculator, we have calculators. The whole point is reaching things that deterministic calculations either can't or don't in a reasonable timeframe.

What seems blatantly obvious does not always represent the underlying reality. This can also be taken as a chance to discover better solutions to a given problem than banning phones.

This website has become wildly cruel.

I think if that were the issue, they can say "We will maintain the same high quality standards which we expect throughout for all pieces". But that isn't what the article talks about, the article frames it as "standing up to the machine" and talks about how corporations talk about it. It ends on a John Henry comparison. Which seems not in line with the "We'll interact with it, but not have anything written directly by it" notion that this is describing.

Fine, I said metric in the original comment when I could have said basis or notion or perspective. But I don't think my interpretation is the unkind one, here. They wrote "it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer", and I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of being empty.

Really, a Nazi comparison? I said that I thought the narrative sucked and was undermining itself. The article was published and posted here, presumably for comment. Nobody said that their magazine should be banned or that they couldn't take some position, just that the position wasn't good.

Who said metrics? You are arguing against something you've made up so that you can grandstand. Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty is not a "spiritually rich" act.

Writing a moral into a narrative doesn't make it narrativeless. They're still saying something, and if what they're saying is wrong and missing the point, then just calling it a moral position doesn't make what's being argued any more real or the ideas any better.

They wrote which things they're concerned about in the article. They included things like "Capitalists say it will replace workers", which, if you're a magazine intending to provide your own perspective, repeating the capitalist narrative but then inverting it and saying it's bad does, I think, suck as a narrative.

This article is fairly standard financial news boilerplate. "Market selloff, thesis is being tested" is an article that gets printed roughly twice a week regardless of what is going on, and is a template that's been run thousands of times.

Glad that Meta is back on the open weights train in force.

This is absurd and silly. Discovery doesn't go away because more new things are being discovered. This position only makes sense if you make an arbitrary cut point where some instances "don't count". If you were to go back to scientists or mathematicians several hundred years ago and tell them that one day science would be done by tens of millions of full time researchers around the globe, often working in teams, some of them might also bemoan the loss of the "hero scientist" as any commoner could now participate. But science and math have only benefited from this, and this has increased, not decreased, the beauty and wonder in these fields.

Your reasoning would apply just as well to computers. We have all kinds of things where the expectation is, or was, that you don't ask the computer to do things you don't want, and the times when that expectation has been eroded in favor of "the computer isn't fit for the general public" have been a mistake.

The problem with this view is that that isn't a "bubble". "Eventually" can support quite a while, especially when the investment is increasing revenue over time and the unit economics look good. The timeline point cuts both ways, and none of that is a subsidy.