peepee1982

5000 years ago was pre-capitalist and if they had struggled getting food on the table and had explosives, they might very well have done the same.

In a world where all wealth accumulates at the top and leaves the bottom in precarious conditions, perversions like these are inevitable and could be resolved by treating human needs as priorities and make sure everyone has their needs met, which with todays productivity we could easily accomplish if we all worked together instead of against each other.

  People have a series of rationalizations. People say for example that science 
  and technology have their own logic, that they are in fact autonomous. This 
  particular rationalization is profoundly false. It is not true that science 
  marches on in defiance of human will, independent of human will, that just is 
  not the case. But it is comfortable, as I said: it leads to the position that 
  "if I don't do it, someone else will." 
  
  Of course if one takes that as an ethical principle then obviously it can serve 
  as a license to do anything at all. "People will be murdered; if I don't do it, 
  someone else will." "Women will be raped; if I don't do it, someone else will." 
  That is just a license for violence. 
  
  Other people say, and I think this is a widely used rationalization, that 
  fundamentally the tools we work on are "mere" tools; This means that whether 
  they get use for good or evil depends on the person who ultimately buys them 
  and so on. 
  
  There's nothing bad about working in computer vision, for example. Computer 
  vision may very well some day be used to heal people who would otherwise die. 
  Of course, it could also be used to guide missiles, cruise missiles for 
  example, to their destination, and all that. You see, the technology itself is 
  neutral and value-free and it just depends how one uses it. And besides -- 
  consistent with that -- we can't know, we scientists cannot know how it is 
  going to be used. So therefore we have no responsibility. 
  
  Well, that is false. It is true that a computer, for example, can be used for 
  good or evil. It is true that a helicopter can be used as a gunship and it can 
  also be used to rescue people from a mountain pass. And if the question arises 
  of how a specific device is going to be used, in what I call an abstract ideal 
  society, then one might very well say one cannot know. 
  
  But we live in a concrete society, [and] with concrete social and historical 
  circumstances and political realities in this society, it is perfectly obvious 
  that when something like a computer is invented, then it is going to be adopted 
  will be for military purposes. It follows from the concrete realities in which 
  we live, it does not follow from pure logic. But we're not living in an 
  abstract society, we're living in the society in which we in fact live. 
  
  If you look at the enormous fruits of human genius that mankind has developed 
  in the last 50 years, atomic energy and rocketry and flying to the moon and 
  coherent light, and it goes on and on and on -- and then it turns out that 
  every one of these triumphs is used primarily in military terms. So it is not 
  reasonable for a scientist or technologist to insist that he or she does not 
  know -- or cannot know -- how it is going to be used.

-- Joseph Weizenbaum

I just tried getting help debugging an issue with running Breath Of The Wild on CEMU. Claude chat refused.

ChatGPT didn't care and just gave advice.

There is mention of GLM 5.2's poor web search capabilities, but I see that as a harness responsibility.

I've set up my own SearXNG instance on my VPS and integrated it into Pi alongside the webfetch tool, and GLM 5.2 has so far been great at finding things. I asked it to give me the current news from an Austrian online newspaper that's difficult to parse because of its aggressive ad overlays. Both ChatGPT and Claude failed in their native chat apps. GLM 5.2 in Pi was clever enough to search for the RSS feed and gave me a detailed overview.

The lack of vision is a real shame, though. I've implemented workarounds in Pi that are okay, but they're not as good and the whole experience feels awkward.

If a commit is written by AI but reads as authored by a human, the developer has done their job and nothing will be flagged.

If commits written by AI wouldn't be substantially different, there would be no need to reject them.

So I agree with you that it won't discourage AI-based coding. But that's not even the intent.

Your comment is jarringly out of place, which is why it's getting downvoted.

Similarly, the Western idea of Stoicism seems to focus mostly on controlling or even suppressing your emotions (at least on surface level), while the Stoicism you rightly call "Roman" (thanks for that, btw) is much more holistic and more of an ethical framework.

I'm definitely jealous of the free time homeless people have. I just don't want to make the choice for my children to be homeless with me.

I'm curious: how will it replace e.g. lawyers? Will judges be replaced as well? Juries?

Yes! That's what I've been doing at work for the last few weeks! And while it doesn't appear to be super fast, I'm already pretty certain that the next round of testing will come back with fewer unexpected issues because together with my agent and the right usage, I was already able to catch stuff that I would have missed otherwise.

Also feels much better than pure vibe-coding (which I still do for personal projects that aren't mission critical for anyone).

I don't think you are misunderstanding how models work, but I think the parent comment meant that the training of the models should push them to include attributions in their native output so they will more likely do so without reinforcement through the harness.

Our sports teacher in high-school would tell us to stand straight. Then he would shove us from the back a few times. The foot we would stop ourselves from falling would be our leading foot (for snowboarding). So if you catch your fall with your left foot, you're regular. Otherwise goofy. Don't know if that's a safe bet, but it seemed to work out for us back then.

OTOH: I am convinced I can't snap my fingers with my right hand and never will because my specific mix of handed-ness makes it impossible for me to do so, no matter how hard I try and practice. No problem at all with my left hand.

I write with my left hand but play guitar right-handed. I don't think it had any effect on my playing, because I think I'm a naturally right-handed guitar player. Here's a list of things and whether I do them right- or left-handed:

  ┌───────────────────────────┬───────────┐
  │ Activity                  │ Hand      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Baseball (Bat/Catch)      │ Left      │
  │ Hold Spoon                │ Left      │
  │ Soccer                    │ Left      │
  │ Tennis                    │ Left      │
  │ Throw Ball                │ Left      │
  │ Darts                     │ Left      │
  │ Write                     │ Left      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Bow and Arrow             │ Right     │
  │ Hold Fork/Knife           │ Right     │
  │ Play Drums                │ Right     │
  │ Scissor                   │ Right     │
  │ Shoot Rifle (Nerf Gun)    │ Right     │
  │ Skateboard/Snowboard      │ Right     │
  │ Use Mouse                 │ Right     │
  └───────────────────────────┴───────────┘

Basically, the only reason I call myself left-handed is because I write with my left hand. All in all, I have no idea if I do more things left handed or right handed.

I agree, but the reality is that most people work to make a living, not to have fun. If you enjoy your job because you mostly get to write code in a tight feedback loop instead of doing the "hard" work of planning, writing and reviewing specs, balancing customer requirements, and the lot, you have a very privileged life. And those jobs are probably going to get fewer now.

It's kind of sad. But on the other hand, I am glad I don't have to write every little line of code myself *on top* of having to do all the other stuff.

I don't feel the need to justify my salary, since I'm simply lucky in that regard. But I'm pretty sure you couldn't do my job just because you had access to a coding agent. Most of my time at the office is spent discussing high-level architecture and strategy, ideas, customer requests, backward compatibility, safety, security, quality assurance, etc.

Writing the actual code is a significant part of that, but the codebase is so complex that even Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 struggle with it without being fed a *lot* of context and constraints. And even then, they need a *lot* of steering due to making bad decisions that only someone with an intimate knowledge of the theory behind our software is able to catch.

I can only assume that people who think coding agents can completely replace an actual developer mostly deal with trivial software regarding both scope and the type of customers they serve (individuals instead of big companies in industry).