HN user
I see this argument pattern a lot, so looked into what the name is. Apparently it's called Sorites paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox or the "continuum fallacy" in which something that's continuous is dismissed as not existing because we can't divide it into clear categories.
This is an interesting point, but there's slightly more to it than that. When something is simple and does the job well, it has limitations. The problem is that adding each subsequent feature has a small benefit and a small, but immeasurable cost. Sometimes that cost outweighs the benefit, but knowing that before the fact is very hard, and removing features is almost impossible as people shout disproportionately loudly about losing things.
It's similar to the problem of regulation. Looking at each individual law, it often seems reasonable. It's only when there are 10,000, and everything grinds to a halt, that people realise there's a problem.
I've been letting Gemini run gcloud and "accept all"ing while I've been setting some things up for a personal project. Even with some limits in place it is nervewracking, but so far no issues and it means I can go and get a cup of tea rather than keep pressing OK. Pretty easy to see how easy it would be for rogue AI to do things when it can already provision its own infrastructure.
That is because you are replying to two different people.
People can learn across layers of abstraction, but specialisation is generally a good thing and creates wealth, a Scottish guy wrote a good book on it.
I will preface this by saying that I care a lot about climate change and carbon usage and AI usage is not a big issue, it is in fact a distraction from where we should be focusing our efforts.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/carbon-footprint-c...
They've gone downhill in the last few years in my opinion, they've become more overtly partisan and got substantially downgraded on factual reporting by MediaBias Fact check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
They've always been left of centre, but they're lazy and jump more into the predictable culture war pandering.
The FT is streets ahead of anyone else, they've become more centrist and less dry in recent years. I don't know what their revenues are like but I'd wager that they're doing better as they're one of the only ones with a business model that allows them to pay for good journalism.
Continues to apply
Great advice that is a bit redundant with LLMs, no? They're pretty great at all forms of translation.