For some definition of 'they', sure, there's always *someone* paranoid about the scenario.

However there's a fair amount more credible supposition over this one. Trump's sore loser reaction has paved the way for some dangerous moves.

In 2020, he only went to interfere *after* the fact, but he clearly interfered. When the results betrayed him, he sought to overturn them and when that failed he tried to ignore the electors and use their own anyway and as that failed he tried to get Pence to reject the election and as that failed he incited a mom to try to disrupt the proceedings. He learned that in a fair game he actually could lose and that was unacceptable and he was willing to do whatever it takes to replace a loss with a win.

Now he and opportunistic cohorts are already much more proactive about it. Every reason to anticipate any plausible excuse to rig or discard the elections as he has proven himself already willing to do so and is surrounded by a much more all-in administration than his first term. Already trying to mess with mail-in, already openly rigged the representative maps, already been working ICE and national guard troops to get the hang of domestic military operations. Stephen Miller once basically publicly fantasized about sending republican controlled national guard into democratic states against their will to make them bend to his will.

I do anticipate the election will be *held* and if and only if the results are a loss will they try anything like an 'emergency', but I absolutely expect ICE and national guards to be doing operations around strategic polling sites. Ostensibly about immigration or crime, but with the oh so coincidental side effect of voter suppression.

I get the feeling that Zuck is in a similar boat to Richard Dawkins and Kent Overstreet, who have gone off the deep end and believe they have LLMs which are effectively equivalent to human companionship.

Remember Zuck celebrated that people could have AI "friends" and employees could talk to AI impersonations of their management and it would be just as good as actually getting to talk to management.

Nothing quite as publicly really off the deep end as Overstreet and Dawkins (who both seem to have decided that their favored LLMs must be 'girls', which strongly suggests they needed to gender it to make their "crush" make sense for them), with Overstreet getting extra creepy points for insisting his LLM is essentially a teenage girl. I would not be surprised if he at least more privately holds similar feelings and thus doesn't view this as "apocalyptic" bad.

I would have figured this would have happened a long time ago, shocked it took until now to have a machine beat a human at running bipedal.

We aren't even the fastest bipedal animal.

I would not go *that* far. Sure an artist can flop out of the industry, and new artists have to come from *somewhere*, but the music industry has more and more successfully "manufactured" the performers rather than "discovered" them.

Also, lots of working it from other angles, the music is a relatively small part of the picture for the biggest musicians. Other media or just a celebrity for the sake of celebrity type things. Co-hosting some reality show that has nothing to do with music, for example.

He's not done much in the field in over a decade now, and even then arguably it was mostly riding on the remembered success from the 90s.

The report included a patch, but the patch was completely wrong based on a random guess of how a certain software could behave. It 'worked' for the reporter by also swallowing all errors and silently continuing, despite the particular call failing. It was a check to see if a particular action would be needed, and so it silently assumed the step would not be needed, which happened to be true for the reporter so it looked 'fixed' to them.

Problem is that there are more than two people that are stakeholders, and and it would be nuts for me to just let the codebase get screwed up to try to prove a point for one very minor stakeholder who won't even get bitten by the mistake because their situation doesn't hit the bug inflicted by the change. If I let a random user patch a codebase, I rightfully get blamed, not them. And AI assessment of the report would likely agree with the submitter, because the AI generated a plausible rationale, and AI gives the benefit of the doubt to the material in the prompt fodder.

There actually is a project that I used to be a part of but no longer use or work on, but left my notifications active, because why bother changing and it was largely a "done" project, almost no new issues, not much in terms of code changes. Some guy decided to go all in on LLM giving free reign. Was not confident to be a developer but declared AI made it possible for him to change things. Suddenly lots of code changes, and also a sudden flurry of external issues of users who had been using it for a long time asking why random stuff was broken. Near as I could tell when I got around to disabling all the notifications, he just kept feeding issues into LLM and releasing updates and getting a new wave of issues and repeating. What was a boringly stable project became an eternally random messed up mess because he let LLM take over everything and it breaks as much as it helps. I'm not letting any of my active projects turn into that.

Which explains a lot of very overly verbose "reports" that have been sent to me about "issues". The person thinks they are using AI to make their report more useful, but I still find the human input to be sufficient and the AI reports to be a pain to actually work backwards to the issue. Especially when it decides to fixate on what it thinks is the root cause and gloss over what the actual problem was... Which has at least once become super counter-productive, as the report got it flat out wrong and the reporter refused to give me the usual debug information because "Claude already looked it over and gave the answer, can't you just accept its findings and figure out how to fix it?"

Yes, you can use their app to pay. It sucks though.

For one, my watch can tap to pay, but not with walmart app.

For walmart, I have to open the app, wait for it to load, sometimes it randomly decides I need to "prove I'm a human", then as I'm trying to go to pay, it pops up a "you want walmart+ now!" and the "yes" button is close to where I would have tapped so I can imagine they get accidental accepts. Then finally I click and it opens the camera app to scan the qr code, which is an annoying approach in general. Even worse, their qr screen is glossy and I happen to catch a reflection of one of the glaring lights right where the code is unreadable.

Their app to purchase was just a mess of bad UI and poor store setup for a qr code based solution, very clunky compared to nfc type approaches.

Note I said incremental cost of a remote area in particular. Launching satellites doesn't even narrow down the investment to a single nation, let alone focus spending on the communities underserved. So we can look forward to subsidizing Starlink global infrastructure with money intended to improve options where they are lacking.

This is exactly what it is, Starlink can't do gigabit, can't do low latency, but *can* reach random places easily. Musk and Trump seemingly have made up relatively recently and I am certain this favor is a consequence.

So with this Starlink gets access to funds that are generally made available to give *quality* access to especially rural places. Money to make up for the relatively high incremental cost of wiring up an area compared to the revenue. Except Starlink has effectively zero incremental cost to serve these areas, so they get to collect the same money as a provider would have had to spend to actually run real wires.

I thought this administration considered fairness "woke", but for outdated technology, *suddenly* we need to be fair?

We should stop airplanes from flying, it's not fair to horse saddles.

I think that remains accurate, but it depends on the domain.

Search had always been free form text input, and that extends to this, open ended interaction with impossibly large dataset to browse and impossibly many things to request. Places based on text interaction are places where LLM have a good chance of having a large role.

However, this isn't the total world. For example, LLM will only be as good at taking an order as a drive through speaker. I greatly appreciate managing an order through an app or kiosk, where I can more quickly peruse options in detail, more quickly knowing what's in it, price, calories, etc. Maybe an LLM option when you know generally what you want to fill out the order then a UI to tweak details.

Tons of UIs are more than some compromise for helping a computer be a consolation prize for not bothering to have a human handle a request.

Lots of AI companies seem to be forgetting this and imagining that devices that are just microphones and speakers will take over, but they are incorrect in many cases.

I don't know about mental health, but at least MIT's policy seems to not detract from it's students reputation in the industry.

I guess the question is why you would say "Would you fly on a rocket designed and built by people who could not fail?" based on the current topic that UoM is adopting MIT's long-standing strategy to first semester grading. You seem to infer that UoM adopting this will produce bad engineers that can't be trusted to design and build a rocket, but MIT has been doing it since the 1960s. Why is it so terrible for UoM to do it and it isn't a concern that MIT does?

Well you have Google, and of course Apple could decide to in-source the AI engine if it is so important, they tend to like doing that.

But when it comes to software development, Anthropic certainly has the advantaged position in reputation. However more broad use cases I think are supremely vulnerable to the platform owners of the endpoint devices changing the default. Why do Claude when the hardware button already chats with "some AI". Why leave office 365 that you already are running when office 365 will frontend whatever AI microsoft feels like? Even in the field that Anthropic is very well respected, I know entire companies that only use it by way of Github copilot because their company has a financial arragement with Microsoft. Leaving even users of Anthropic models at risk of Microsoft shuffling things around to use a model of Microsoft's choosing.

So even if Microsoft sucks, Microsoft dictates a bunch of defaults. Even if Google sucks, they dictate a lot of defaults.

Musk, Altman, and Zuckerberg are probably the ones I see at highest risk of failing to capture enduring success in this market. Anthropic certainly has the technical trajectory to be some sort of durable success, but just think there's a lot of potential for others to act as gatekeepers to the ecosystem.