mbrumlow

It’s fairly silly to work at Amazon if you don’t like data centers. And also stupid for Amazon to employ you if you don’t like data center and are actively making efforts in your free time and possibly while at work to prevent the construction of data centers.

You really have to question the motives of somebody who is anti data center working at Amazon to the point they may only work there to throw wrenches into plans for such.

Making it a “political issue” should not result in a company dealing with such issues.

You would never stand up for having doctor or nurses plotting to prevent abortions and potentially taking action on the job to prevent them.

Your company might fail then. Because I won’t be fighting to work at your company, I’ll just compete with your company and get paid what I deserve.

We already have CEOs is vendors trying to scare people away from vibe coding their contract away, while I diligently vibe code their contract away.

Not much new here as my entire career has been coding away 3rd party contracts, and it’s now easier than ever.

Correct, the word “and” is a coordinating conjunction. It joins two parallel adjectives. They’re related, but they’re not the same axis.

Maybe those who participate in democracy should have to demonstrate some level educations on the topics they vote on?

Because if you are right it’s a loosing battle. The masses will always be under informed, and under educated. And the only way to inform and educate them would result very undemocratic society.

Those algorithmic biases have demonstrable behavioral consequences.

The algos optimize for engagement, which can roughly translate into the people drive the algos, as they would stop watching or visiting or commenting, if it was not something they wanted to engage in.

So in some ways, is this not democracy to the max?

I wonder if articles like these don’t like the outcomes, or the reflection of society that the algos create. And thus attack them, because they would rather curate and limit conversation and expressions on the internet they don’t like or agree with.

I thunk you are right. This is just the same old stuff. I think people are reacting because AI is doing something, and that something seems to be accelerating the process of software development. So what people are seeing is the same issues we have always had compressed into tiny time frames.

But there is good news, at least I think. AI is also moving processes ideas and safety guards along at a faster rate. The only real downside is right now, at least, the amount of code being created outside of our safeguards has accelerated much much faster. This has happened in the past with software, so I am not too worried.

This. We don’t have a housing problem. We have a “I want to live here problem.” And if we could snap our fingers and everybody in the world who wanted to live in NY could, it would be the same second nobody would want to live in NY.

It just does not scale like people think. And that is why the price has to go up, and that is the forcing factor for max capacity of any given parcel of land.

The fact is we all can’t live in the same city. And people need to do what we did in the past. And that is move to new locations that are cheaper.

Every hot spot today once was a crappy place, it was over time that it became the desirable place. That is just how it works. You got to move and live where you can afford.

Every city has a max amount of occupancy, and density. It’s so silly to even think about this on the individual level. I can find 1BN people who want to live in NY today if told today they could have a place today for $500 a month but 1BN other people are also joining would instantly turn down the offer.

Wtf. I use OpenAI for all my shopping now. How to match clothing and finding things I have seen.

ChatGPT has helped me with all the wired social things I have no clue about. Like how long should a suit jacket be, what to pair with loafers. And more often than not I buy the things ChatGPT suggest.

ChatGPT lets me be normal.

“Put an Idempotency-Key on the request. Store the response. Replay it on retry.”

Is this the new normal? Assert something, that id clearly broken as the correct, then write a blog fixing their broken logic?

You don’t replay it on retry. You signal it is a success on first try, and subsequent request with the same key return 409.

Anything else and you are doing it wrong.

The second is when people generate artifacts in disciplines they were never trained in.

This screams gate keeping.

My self and many who are experts in their fields were never formally trained. The titans that built the world of software we have today were mostly untrained in this specific field.

I think the article completely misses the point. If the artifacts created solve a problem then who cares who wrote the prompt or wrote the code.

Software ha changing, and holding in to old notions, titles, processes and rules to keep your status , title and importance seems silly.

I have been saying this for years.

When I was young I somehow figured out how to control my dreams. By the time I was an adult and working in software all my dreams were always iterating over solutions to problems I had at work. And every day I would come into the office with the ability to move forward on projects with insights in leaned that night while sleeping.

And?

I why do we keep posting headlines like this. It’s not if the data center is going to take the power away from other people.

The metric of “more than X” in this case seems useless and sensational.

I use eat. So far it’s been the best one. But I did have to fix a few bugs, and add kkp support to it. It’s not the fastest but it gets the job done.

I am always having these arguments. We are paying this other company x a year for something we should build if we really need it.

The rebuttals I always get are “I want you working on something that I can’t pay another company for”. I think it sounds good, but in the long run we always end up a budget conversations and head count limits because we spend so much money on external services and software we should just build.

Every company ever has this problem.

But now with AI. The cost of showing the company “yes we can” is so cheap. I worry for companies who have promotable replacements.

I look a Claude / ChatGPT as an extension of my thought. It should be held as such in all court proceedings. It’s used to allow me to think and reason about things.

Idk how that works with journals today, but anything like this which helps me organize my thoughts should be off limits to discovery.

Idk about you. But I know lots of well qualified ICs who are enamored with AI. They are also boring it to build and fix things that would take months, in just days.

Decisions are less costly. When a swe can take 4 days to do what would have cost 6 months, the math of making sure you are doing the right thing before executing goes away.

Now I'm pretty sure that people who say they "vibecoded an app in 30 minutes" are either building simple copies of existing projects, produce some buggy crap, or just farm engagement.

Some people seem to be better at it than others. I see a huge gulf in what people can do. Oddly there is a correlation between was a good engineer pre AI and can vibe code well.

But I see one odd thing. A subset of those who people would consider good or even amazing pre AI struggle. The best I can tell at this stage is because they lacked get int good results with unskilled workers in the past and just relied on their own skills to carry the project.

AI coders can do some amazing things. But at this stage you have to be careful about how you guide it down a path in the same way you did with junior engineers. I am not making a comparison to AI being junior, they by far can code better than most senior engineers, and have access to knowledge at lighting speed.

True.

Nope. The clinic is the collateral to the bank. VC stand to loose nothing.

It does not happen overnight. But what happens is after they take control of the clinic or company they change the sales model to boost reoccurring revenue, this then allows the clinic or target company to take loans out. Because they look good on paper. The company then pays VC back when then pays bank back.

This can be done in about 6mo to 1 year process with some companies. The initial out of pocket expense is small and paid back very quickly.

I also forgot. Sometimes they will take the newly owned company and merge it. During that process they extract more money and load more debt onto the remaining entities, again making the VC money.

In some cases they can even get huge tax benefits by loading the company with debt which offsets the tax bill of the final entity.

When these transactions are done, within the span of a day multiple companies are created and merged and absolved.

There is little to no risk for the VC

he started his second job as the human labor behind AI sex bots

This makes no sense. AI sex bots don’t need humans texting and role playing.

I don’t think whoever wrote this article understands what AI is.

Note the fist job of describing what was in the video seems like somebody building a AI dataset.

No dude. Read it again.

The VC lends (the money from the bank) which the vc borrowed, to the clinic.

They are a sort of middle man. It the clinic is on the hook to the bank and the Vc takes fist cut before playing the bank.

Eg. The vc only risked the company they were buying, and gets paid first.

If you actually want to engineer properly.

I think this statement is misguided, and potentially comes from a lack of experience in getting AI coders to produce quality.

Proper engineering does not come about from the tools you use or how you use them. Proper engineering has always come from thought, and reasoning, it never was about the act of coding. It always was about the systems thinking and expressing the goals and desires that matched the requirements.

IDEs were never needed to properly engineer and in the days of AI will become increasingly less important.

Tools for planning, reviewing, and commenting on code are the future. The necessity to edit actual code is coming to an end.

The they failed part is not the Senate. Some members of the Senate failed to get the votes to pass the bill. Whe. You say it like you have it implies the will of the senate was to block it and they failed. And that is weird because the senate clearly did not want to block it otherwise it would have been blocked.

The senate rejected the bill. They did not fail to do anything. The bill failed to get the approval of the senate.

But one thing we know. In the senate did not fail.

Something about the wording seems dishonest though. Whoever sponsored the bill failed to get the senate to pass it.

The wording here makes it seem like the senate wanted this but failed to get it.

So again the senate failing to do something the senate said they did not want to do is weird.

It comes down to some people in the senate wanted this, but they are not the senate.

Politicians have been treating a minority position as the institution’s will for some time. It’s our job to look past that and not be fooled even if you share the same minority position.

author has very strong opinions.

So true. To the point I have to maintain my own fork to make the command key my meta

You’re arguing against a position I never took.

I didn’t say right-wing policies are inherently anti-science. I said your contrast makes no sense. You’re blaming Western decline on xenophobia and far-right politics, but China has strong nationalism, social conservatism, demographic engineering, speech controls, and limited immigration. All things typically associated with the political tendencies you are criticizing.

So which is it?

If nationalism and social conservatism are corrosive to long-term success, then China shouldn’t be your example of strategic competence. If those traits aren’t inherently corrosive, then maybe "far-right politics" isn’t the explanatory variable you think it is.

You can’t simultaneously argue that right-wing xenophobia is sinking the West while praising a country that institutionalizes many of those same tendencies.

If your actual claim is about state capacity and science investment, then say that. But don’t smuggle in partisan framing as the cause of decline and then retreat to "pro-science funding" when the comparison falls apart.

GIAC has zero authority, any group of people can get together and make their own policies and print a nice little certificate when somebody applies.

This comment seems crazy to me.

Chinas political stance more closely resembles right-wing policies than left leaning ones.

All the xenophobic notions you are talking about china has in spades.

I am not saying China is not doing things right here will lead to your described outcome, what I am saying you conflation with western politics is completely out of this world, and is a excellent example of why the outcome you describe may be a reality for China.

They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they.

Because companies want to make MORE money.

Your hypothetical company is now competing with another company who didn’t opposite, and now they get to market faster, fix bugs faster, add feature faster, and responding to changes in the industry faster. Which results in them making more, while your employ less company is just status quo.

Also. With regards to oil, the consumption of oil increases as it became cheaper. With AI we now have a chance to do projects that simply would have cost way too much to do 10 years ago.