anon7725

See also: AI PR authors & AI PR reviewers

Nearly all animals are afraid of fireworks:

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-devastating-effects-o...

Fireworks are a traumatic and disruptive intrusion on their environment akin to a temporary war. We (humans) already do enough traumatic and disruptive intrusions on the lives of wild animals, that doing this wholly unnecessary “just for funsies” thing is particularly cruel.

It’s rich how you’ve decided to call out “city people” as being responsible for the situation rather than the trash individuals who set off illegal fireworks.

You’re out of your element, Donny.

I support the CHIPS Act and IRA

So do I. As I understand it, those bills involved incentives that any company could access provided that they met the conditions (manufacture in US, etc). The IRA also provided direct incentives to consumers to spend their money as they saw fit (EVs, solar, heat pumps, etc).

Direct investment by the executive branch is something else entirely. For example, Intel is now blessed and too big to fail. Why would anyone start a competitor to it? If you did start a competitor, your first call would be to Commerce, right? Seems like a heaping dose of moral hazard.

I can understand direct investment in very narrow circumstances, such as rare earth minerals and possibly something like nuclear power generation.

An alternative is a truly-independent sovereign wealth fund, or independently-governed pension investment arm such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. But I doubt, in light of the Humphrey's Executor decision, that it's possible for the United States to create such an entity now.

I am not the original commenter, but I interpret it to mean that large corporations can almost always arrange it so that they don't pay tax or don't pay their fair share of tax. 88 companies paid $0 tax on $105B in profit in 2025[0]

[0] https://itep.org/88-profitable-corporations-paid-zero-income...

In your own codebase you can at least run a "you simulator" to arrive at the answer fairly reliably. "Where would I have put this bit? Oh yes, of course ..."

It's 2026 - they should change their fucking name.

In this case, one of the packages is uninspiring and the other is fascism, so the choice is fairly clear.

Asking Claude to think about “good ways to structure this” or asking how similar problems get solved in industry or high profile projects has really helped me design better solutions

I think this highlights the difference between the “how do I make a ham sandwich?” approach of chat vs the “sudo make me a ham sandwich” of agentic coding.

Is there a cleaner, more consistent technology for baseload?

At a certain point, dollars are funny money if you are destroying the environment to save a few now by generating baseload with a carbon-producing tech.

Of course, let’s build the safest and most efficient nuclear that we can, but “its capex is too high” is not a compelling argument to me.

And to be clear: renewables should form as much of the capacity as possible, but a reliable baseload is obviously still needed.

Musk explicitly centered his DOGE effort on rooting out “woke” programs. This included pulling funding from independent research under the auspices of various government departments.

The Trump administration spent considerable effort strong arming colleges on account of speech that they did not like. Even if you subscribe to FIRE’s “Chicago Statement”, you should find the government interfering with colleges like this a break-glass scenario. “Individual Rights in Education” surely include the right to hold beliefs and teach in a way that the current administration is uncomfortable with.

So yes, these are fascist activities wholly consistent with the other fascist activities that MAGA movement is engaged in.

Fascists do claim to support free speech while wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that they disagree with is suppressed, eg on college campuses.

So if tomorrow AIs decide that they are alive, it would be morally incumbent upon them to adapt the world to support themselves, correct?

The only system of morality that applies to LLMs is their effect on us and the planet. Don’t anthropomorphize a matrix.

"Alive" is irrelevant

Alive is always relevant. Our moral consideration must place beings that are alive or processes that support the life on this planet above things which are not alive.

In a just world, it must be adapted to us. It’s merely a file sitting on disk with numbers in it. And to put a fine point on it: the ambitions of the wealthy people who make it must be adapted to us.

AI is better at this than you.

Maybe so, but I am better at this when I engage with AI in a controlled manner.

I choose A.

I know that many others choose A as well.

A wonderful service known as the web has connected people who choose A with others who choose A and of course with a great many who don’t need to make a choice and benefit from the work of others.

I mourn a world in which few will choose A, because for many to choose B seems to lock us all, tragedy of the commons style, into a worse world.

We understand what you’re claiming, we just think that you are wrong.

These can be tools to destroy the oppression that governs our lives

So far it seems that the clearest use for these tools is to enhance, rather than destroy, oppression.

1. Suppression / elimination of white collar jobs

2. Negative cognitive effects, especially for young people

3. Accelerated decline in social media / information ecosystems. Increasing polarization, hard to tell fact from fiction.

4. Environmental impacts: increased energy usage means more carbon in the atmosphere, climate change accelerates.

5. Software security incidents increasing. Hard for individuals and small organizations to defend themselves.

6. “Power to think” vested in a very small group of organizations/labs. Doing work which should only require a computer and freely-available software will now be gated by expensive subscriptions. Once you “vibe code” a significant portion of your software you’re locked in and cannot go back to maintaining it without frontier-model level assistance.

And to close the loop - there is no architectural thinking without experience in execution. The highly productive people who are all-in on agentic coding today are powered by their previous experience doing implementation. As time goes on their powers will wane unless they make a point to keep them sharp by doing enough hands-on implementation.

It’s the same as a “non-coding architect” role (remember those). Most of them are absolutely full of shit architecture astronauts.

It is truly vile to compare concerns about LLMs to anti-immigrant discrimination.

The contrarian bet is that being able to code (by yourself) may be more valuable in the future. It will certainly become rarer.

It’s Jason Zweig, the Wall Street Journal personal finance columnist, not a YC alum.

"To explicitly declare that a certain class implements a given protocol, it can be used as a regular base class. In this case a class could use default implementations of protocol members. Static analysis tools are expected to automatically detect that a class implements a given protocol. So while it’s possible to subclass a protocol explicitly, it’s not necessary to do so for the sake of type-checking."

https://peps.python.org/pep-0544/#explicitly-declaring-imple...

so I'm pretty sure the new preferred way is to explicitly use abstract superclasses... just like Java did all along (and is mandatory).

typing.Protocol is a good fit for this use case

  from typing import Protocol
  
  class HasMessage(Protocol):
      def get_message(self) -> str: ...
  
  class A:
      """Implicit (duck-typed)"""
      def get_message(self) -> str:
          return "A"
  
  class B(HasMessage):
      """Explicit"""
      def get_message(self) -> str:
          return "B"
  
  class C:
      def get_message(self) -> int:
          return 1
  
  def print_message(m: HasMessage) -> None:
      print(m.get_message())
  
  print_message(A())
  print_message(B())
  print_message(C())  # fails type check

I don’t think this captures the full story. The US has a bimodal standard of living reflected as a lower mean relative to other advanced nations.

It can be simultaneously true that immigrants to the U.S. from both advanced and developing nations both experience a higher standard of living than their countries of origin.

Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.

Immigrating to the U.S. from a developing country without a particularly in-demand career: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.

Ours is a culture that can no longer whip the llama’s ass.

On our present trajectory, any new super intelligence will be the billionaire’s plaything. Hope is indeed needed to see how it would benefit the common person.

If the smarts came from post-training, we could show significant gains by doing that post-training again for previous generations of models. But we know that isn’t happening - effective post training is necessary but not sufficient for model performance.

You have framed things well with your short and long g term analysis.

I would add these points to negative long-term personal effects:

- potential for cognitive impairment / deficit from long-term AI use.

- lack of diversity / creativity / heterogeneity / outside the box thinking of any sort in work going forward.

By my back of the envelope calculations, we produce something like 300kg of CO2 annually simply by breathing. I would prefer to continue to live, however.

The CO2 that you exhale came from elements that were fairly recently part of an animal or vegetable - ie part of an active and ongoing carbon cycle, rather than deposited into the ground 100M years ago and pulled out to be inserted into the system.

Carbon cycles aren't bad - they're fundamental to life on Earth, obviously. It's making the system unstable by continuous addition that causes the problem.