Want to? No opinion. But it may actually be necessary to have something akin to emotions in order achieve an AGI that will be generally recognized as genuinely intelligent.

The problem with gold and silver is Russia is sitting on a lot of gold, and it is conceivable Putin will cash out a big market crushing amount to save his skin.

Not predicting it will definitely happen, but the risk of a huge drop in gold and silver prices is not so small.

If the junior developers are offloading a significant portion of the the hard problem solving work to the ML, they are simply less mentally prepared to learn from mistakes. There is less of a sense of ownership. There is less understanding of the situation that precipitated the mistake.

This comes down to how the human brain works and how it learns and improves at hard things.

Now, I am not going to assert that it is inevitable that an individual junior developer is going to learn less. I would say that using ML and pushing for apparent productivity is a situation that will very likely lead to junior developers learning VASTLY less.

Likewise, it is not inevitable that high school student using ML will learn little when creating an essay. However genuine scientific studies show most such students learn ZERO -- they cannot remember much of anything about the topic when quizzed after submitting their essay.

In a manner of speaking, my upper middle class in laws in NYC were very often "priced out" before this change. They owned a nice car and had plenty of money in their wallet, but the hassle of time in traffic and expense of parking was unattractive compared to taking public transport into Manhattan, most of the time.

If the non-rich now have a better run public transport system, the non-rich as a group are probably much better off overall. Having to go in extra early to work because the buses run behind schedule is a cost. Being late to dinner when one was expecting to spend the evening with the family is a cost. These things add up.

So, yes, the poor probably benefit, even if the positives are not necessarily a win for every individual, as is always the case.

One has to walk before one can try to run. One has to walk before one can try to dance.

This vision of producing capable independent thinkers who meld their own knowledge with that provided by machines tools sounds great. But how does a student get there, if they never ever stand alone and show they can think at all without the mental crutches? How do you judge their own capabilities without asking them to at least sometimes put down the crutches? How do they improve themselves in their role as AI partners when they have limited or no experience they can call their own?

At some point, a few colleges will throw down the gauntlet and ban all AI assistive tech from most classes, even if this means oral and in class exam are the entire grade. And what employers will discover is 90% of those graduates are pretty competent at many things, and 90% of the students from the AI lemming colleges suck.

To build on what you just said...

I am very wary of any argument that may boil down to "I do not not really understand what is going on here, but surely it will be easy to do better with a rebuild". Such claims are often founded on broad ignorance regarding the complexity of the real underlying requirements. And what I mean by "real underlying requirements" are those yardsticks by which the success of the project will be judged by the users/consumers who rely on the software. If the PRD was woefully incomplete you can argue failure is not your fault all you want, but you are still a failure.

However...something that is very messy primarily due to a poor choice of architecture, that is a reason to be auspicious about a rewrite being better. But do not be naive about the previous point. It is so easy to make incorrect assumptions about the requirements scope that your very promising new architectural approach will not save your project from disaster.

You handwaving argument that is so weak on specifics requires no refutation. The fact that you feel compelled to put words into my mouth in order to pretend to have a point is a mark against you.

You are right that "paradox" is not really the right word, but that is the label commonly slapped on.

It really a kind of Measurement Dysfunction, where an incorrect/misleading or fatally incomplete measurement drives counterproductive business behavior.

The underlying cause is the tendency to make linear extrapolations for all outstanding issues, where the poorly understood issues are presumed to be approximately as hard as well understood issues. Someone with a little self awareness would realize that if I understand X well and not Y, it could well be that is not random but because Y is much harder, the genuine difficulties hiding behind the cloud of my own ignorance.

Fair question.

I would say these were necessary but not sufficient for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. So the 10% growth is there over the last 30 years in certain sectors, just harder to measure here in the USA.

Presenting conjecture as the truth is simply lying -- that is likely to offer negative value. Presenting conjecture as an idea that might worthy of further investigation -- that has a significant chance of bringing positive value.

At face value, you are arguing for a position that I am 100% certain that no sane adult believes.

It is a matter of context.

If I have a feed whose topics include politics, of course it would be lame to curate away all opinions that differ from mine. Of course, I accept that some people will make lame choices -- that is how freedom works.

But if I am running a feed where the topic is organic farmer and someone keeps goading participants with off topic political posts, I am going to be quick to shut that down. Gentle persuasion would be best, but if that does not work other means would be applied. Anyone who is bothered by a little moderation there is simply a childish crybaby.

My SO tried Twitter and despised it yeeeeears ago, long before any of the political controversies alluded to on any of these comments. Long before Trump even dipped a toe into politics. She has strong reasons for like Bluesky.

The key feature of Bluesky is the control of your feed is in your hands, not some central authority.

Want certain topics? Go find specific tagged streams on those topics.

A troll is annoying? Block the troll (and deny the troll access to your posts). And because trolls are so easy to never see again, those childish attention getting antics used by attention whores do not work.

Nobody has to listen to you on Bluesky. Your conservative friends were not "banned" from Bluesky. They were blocked out of reading and posting to certain groomed feeds that were controlled by individuals. It is called freedom. Individuals who control certain feeds may or may not be making good choices here, but they are making the choices, not a company algorithm.

Don't like it? Make your own feed for like-minded people. Take responsibility. Freedom gives you options.

Or let a corporate algorithm whore your attention to its feed, if you are not up to being responsible.

Your choice. Real freedom works that way.

It is a place for people who want control of their feed, rather than let their personal attention be whored by a corporate owned algorithm.

And because it is easy to block trolls, the childish attention getting antics common to most social media work poorly.

People who abhor civil discourse are quick to claim that civil discourse is some kind of "Democrat" thing. They may be right about that.

Same story about UC Berkeley. I would say well over 98% of Berkeley students are indistinguishable from any other college student body -- mostly kids who grew up fat and happy in a suburb and care more about getting a lucrative job than any social justice issue. The difference is a couple percent of the student body is energized by the local community in the city of Berkeley and vice versa. It takes only 100 students plus 100 locals out of a university of student body of 46,000 to make a lot of noise.

What is the university administration supposed to do about that? Disperse them with violence, rather than simply enforce the law? Are the administrators supposed to censor objectionable signs?

There is no pleasing the cryptofascists -- they will always get their panties in a bunch and mewl about it, no matter what. Apply the laws of the land in a reasonable fashion, and the fascists will complain about the Marxist administrators. Break some bones, and they will declare the Marxists are fighting the Marxists ha ha.

While TFA shows a graph with a recent downward trend that looks unfavorable compared to the last decade, perhaps we should consider that data in the context of the 15 years preceding?

Are the young entering the workforce weak and unable to cope with the real world? ("It's a ten year low! Clutch the pearls! Panic!")

Or are they more resilient than any generation before them, with a minor blip in recent poll results in a picture that looks generally positive over the long term? ("Today things are so much better than they were in 2000 or 2005 or 2010, and these young adults are our promising future!")

The pretty graph allow us, the readers, to impose whichever interpretation will prefer.