Yes, Parkinson's law comes into play, but IMO that will be mostly at the nation-state level.

I think you're too railroaded about attention. The larger AI goals remain the same: pattern recognition and modeling. Attention achieves pattern recognition but not modeling. And one can imagine there might be a far more efficient paradigm to achieve pattern recognition. Think radix sort vs. bubble sort.

People can and do service their own transmissions, in particular doing a fluid and filter change is generally a pretty easy job. There are also modifications and upgrades to transmissions. You can buy "built" transmissions which include heavy duty parts which can handle larger power, torque, and/or shock loads than stock ones. There are "kits" of aftermarket parts which either address wear over time or even correct design deficiencies like either lazy or excessive engagement of clutches.

What's the measurement? If it's "GDP" then sure, the economy is booming. But GDP is itself meaningless to sustainability, which is the most important thing to measure in anything you hope to keep doing. If you want to keep having an economy, for example, you have to keep having consumers who have money so they can participate in it...

Hardware, yes. But what will you do with it? It's only really good for a few types of task. Where it's GPU-based, as all the Nvidia stuff is, you could use it for lots of different types of tasks. But Services? Energy needs to get a lot cheaper for that to be feasible, because providing services on this hardware is predicated upon using a lot of energy.

A bubble is "a good or fortunate situation that is isolated from reality or unlikely to last". What's good about it, profit for those who are profiting. Why's it isolated from reality, all three of those reasons. Why's it unlikely to last, reality is inexorable, no amount of ignoring it will cause it to change.

One bubble, at least three reasons why it's bubbling. Probably we could identify a bunch more, like nerd fantasy. One of the consequences of techbros being in a position to decide what society does with itself is that they will send us on tech-related wild goose chases.

The goal of making ourselves obsolete is typically self-defeating when we can't even agree to let humans have free time when they don't need to be working.

Been watching the news lately? "Never" is a long time.

C4C destroyed mostly old shitpiles with poor efficiency, so it was effective in reducing hydrocarbon emissions.

I suspect a lot of these machines will go to the third world and get refurb'd into PCs there, so people will benefit anyway. In fact, a significant percentage of them will probably get Windows 11 installed on them using the bypasses...

Microsoft put the same telemetry they put into 10 into 7 and 8 via updates. Some of those were "updates" that included nothing but telemetry, sometimes they bundled the telemetry with actual updates so if you wanted one you had to have the other. There are scripts and other tools to remove those updates, but if you are not using those and you have been doing updates, they all spy on you.

Indeed, No True Scotsman would use STL with C++.

The last job I had where I had to use C/C++, we automatically ran an expensive static analysis tool every time we checked in code. I'd estimate that it only found about half of the potential segfaults, and it made up for that by finding twice as many false positives.

Nope. If I had used st::list instead of std::vector, it would have been perfectly fine and officially supported. (Assuming I changed "i+10" to "i+11" in order to make the algorithm actually terminate, although that change wouldn't affect the vector crash.).

The problem is that there are dozens of different rules you have to remember to apply to the different types of lists and iterators. And that's only talking about that one topic. There are hundreds of other rules covering a multitude of language aspects that you have to mentally apply against every single line of code you write, many of which can potentially cause memory corruption.

Bubble #4 is that already algorithmic improvements are reducing the number of GPUs needed for the same result. I've called the attention mechanism the E=mc^2 moment that ushered in LLMs. What if, instead of the aforementioned ongoing incremental improvements, there is another sharp discontinuity beyond attention -- such as LeCun's JEPA, or embodiment championed these days by Musk -- that also happens to obsolete the GPU?

It is said the human brain is 1 exaflop. Today, that requires 20 MW, but the human brain requires only 20 W. We may wake up one day with a bunch of nuclear reactors we don't need.

That is a dangerous misconception. You don't need to use any pointers to get memory errors in C++:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
 
int main() {
    std::vector<int> v = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
    for (auto i : v) {
        if (i % 2 == 0) {
            v.push_back(i + 10);
        }
        printf("%d\n", i);
    }
 
    return 0;
}
 
$ g++ -Wall -pedantic t.cpp
$ echo $?
0
$ ./a.out
 
1
2
-947527061
1600570778
5
6
7
8
9

Are you seriously trying to suggest that never allocating memory is not also a "straight jacket"?

You seem to be saying that a currently existing bowdlerized version C++ is safe for close-world problems. Possibly so, but that still leaves C++ unsuitable for open-world problems. That makes C++ only suitable for niche applications. Why learn it?

If you just use Rust or any other memory safe language, you won't have to worry about what kind of "world" you're writing for, or about choosing from a range of increasingly dangerous "profiles".

Back then they chalked it up to just being old or it fell under the senile category.

There isn’t a living thing on this planet without detectable levels of micro plastics. That makes a control group extremely difficult.