Don't you think "having a concrete idea of what sort of code change / end behavior you're looking for" affects the prompts and LLM output?

It's also hard to export manufactured goods if they're not price-competitive on their own merits.

They're talking about how recent trends are a departure from the existing trends that got Japan to where it is now (where you seem to like it).

On voting day here, you can be in and out in 5 minutes. The amount of time it takes to vote is the amount of time it takes for you to fill in the bubbles.

Tell me how that's worse than me waiting three hours in line in the Phoenix sun to vote, only to be given a provisional ballot because I'm the wrong demographic. And I know my ballot is going to be thrown in the trash and not counted.

You have never been to Japan. Visit. It will blow your mind.

edit: lol, "You're posting too fast" an hour later. Okay @dang, you win. I'll just take the "ur stoopid" comment like a champ. What kind of fucking Nazi won't even let you speak?

Lack of care is malice, though. Hanlon's razor only applies if they would aspire to do better but lack the awareness/capability, not if they'd happily accept the tradeoff.

> Lack of care is malice

These words have pretty specific meanings and this ain’t it.

> I feel like the people who can't comprehend the difficulties of an AI <thing doer> are people who have never <tried to do that thing really well>.

That applies to every call to replace jobs with current-gen AI.

But I can't think of a difference between CEOs and other professions that works out in favor of keeping the CEOs over the rest.

Lurking between the lines in arguments about AI writing/code/art is that whether or not an activity is "gym" or "job" is often in the eye of the beholder.

People who never "went to the gym" in a field are all too eager to brush off the entire design space as pure Job that can and should be fully delegated to AI posthaste.

That's why the whole thing has to start with you identifying what you consider core to yourself.

Advertising as a source of consumer information is a market for lemons in and of itself. Everyone is free to claim innovation and deliver trash, and internet brands are a dime a dozen. Even just keeping out overt fraud/scams or propaganda campaigns is apparently a losing battle for platforms.

Reviewers/Influencers/interest-publications are often just a half-step above banner ads, but at least has more incentives than just "loudly capture attention" and "publish anything that pays the algorithmic sticker price".

The headline argument hinges on the size of infinities to assert that you'll run out of goals to live for eventually, and thus will eventually become vacuous and despondent over an infinite timeline. But this reliance on infinities is also why they cannot propose a concrete age limit for the Logan's Run Law their gut so desires. May that remain the case for infinity.

Some counter-shower-thoughts:

Are children's lives vacuous and despondent? They have no sense of mortality, no sense of limits, no comprehension even of the fleeting nature of their childhood, and honestly they aren't really striving for a goal the way an Everest climber, or even the average salaried worker, is. Maybe there's more to the meaning of life than striving towards a lofty-yet-grounded-and-pinpoint goal?

Are dogs and cats given longer legal lifespans than humans because they seem happy enough without this vaunted sense of mortality and strife?

Why are Everest summiters or retirees left without goals to strive for, when they've only achieved one or less? That's tangential to Williams' proposition! Is it not because they have too little time left before their "dead"line to forge and pursue a new one, particularly given the toll of aging on mind and body? That seems like the opposite of the point the author's trying to prove.

I'm not sure why people have it in their heads that this "making way" requires one to be cast into the formless void instead of, like, a gated community.

I do think we're significant more likely to solve immortality than the problem of getting old rich powerful people to relinquish their grip on wealth and power

> the problem of getting old rich powerful people to relinquish their grip on wealth and power

This is a solved problem, guillotines worked wonders for this back in the day.

Exactly... Nothing can stop the masses. Plus, we have laws that can change and adapt.

> "the creativity of a human"

> "the economic demand for digital art"

You twisted one "goalpost" into a tangential thing in your first "example", and it still wasn't true, so idk what you're going for. "Using a wrench vs preliminary layout draft" is even worse.

If one attempted to make a productive observation of the past few years of AI Discourse, it might be that "AI" capabilities are shaped in a very odd way that does not cleanly overlap/occupy the conceptual spaces we normally think of as demonstrations of "human intelligence". Like taking a 2-dimensional cross-section of the overlap of two twisty pool tubes and trying to prove a Point with it. Yet people continue to do so, because such myopic snapshots are a goldmine of contradictory venn diagrams, and if Discourse in general for the past decade has proven anything, it's that nuance is for losers.

The problem is how we use it. A human sees not a photo but a video, and has long context before and after, not just that instance, we can also change position, a LLM can't do that at all.