rizzom5000

> If you're not an expert in a given field for which you're using it, it's going to look like a genius.

For someone highly literate, llms aren't going to help you write better. If you're borderline functionally illiterate (this is > 50% of the population according to some studies), I'm sure the llms are awesome.

I've long thought the same about all the hype around coding (plenty of examples from years ago now), but will continue to test the new models. They are improving.

I started to notice a subtle shift a couple years ago. An increase in vibes and hype and a decrease in reason and critical thinking.

Reminiscent of something like Eternal September possibly, but with bots this time? Maybe my interests have simply grown beyond what is typically found here.

This is a game played at the level of primate politics.

If you care about epistemic accuracy more than tribal politics, you'll quickly find yourself in the outgroup.

Logical from a 'within the game' perspective, but those who believe that humans are legitimately trying to transcend their irrational nature will be very disappointed.

There is research that suggests highly agreeable people do not do as well e.g. negotiation tactics. What is probably true is that is good to 'appear' agreeable. The same research suggests you are correct about the other 3 traits.

Stock prices are a prediction built on crowdsourced information.

Do you also believe there is no upside in crowdsourced information found in, say, commodities, equities and futures markets?

With some product categories there are independent testing laboratories that do a fairly good job of determining quality. The automotive industry comes to mind.

It seems it's a revealed preference that most people really don't care that much about quality, or there would exist a host of companies like Consumer Reports to meet the demand. Complaining on social media about enshittification and evil corporations does not put skin in the game.

I myself constantly complain about the atrocious quality of most consumer software products, but I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to pay for a subscription to an independent testing report.

> EU lawmakers should pass laws to prevent this.

So EU lawmakers should determine the amount member countries collect in tax?

> fixed someone else's incompetence

This is basically a full-time job for many senior engineers. It may as well be the job description. Thing is, most of these 'leaders' are not capable hiring competent engineers - as if they're capable of identifying competence. You do not want to end up at one of those organizations - but they are everywhere.

It's interesting to think Microsoft was around back then too, taking approximately 14 years to regain the loss of approximately 58% of their valuation.

In practice, it seems that politics generally takes precedence over problem solving. If you look into the psychology of it, neither politicians nor voters are really incentivized to solve big problems. This is especially true for big problems that will take more than an election cycle to solve.

It seems to me that it would be easy to support an argument that suggests more big problems could be solved if incentives were better aligned toward problem solving and if competent people, not professional politicians, were chosen to solve them.

Maybe I'm autistic, but in this thread is appears that one side is making a rational argument, and the other is an appeal to emotion.

A feeling of a community is not a contract. Complaining about losing that community changes nothing; and I believe that's the point GP is making.

> we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species...

It looks more and more like we're headed toward a world where we'll regenerate extinct species in labs; and grow our steaks in meat factories. If we no longer need cattle farms, it's possible we'll vote to preserve more lands.