Five years ago when I bought a car in America the manual was roughly $1000 cheaper than the automatic.

That is believable. A sole developer at a law firm will have random tasks (like, "find out what is in this dbDOS PRO database we found during discovery"). As such, a lot of your time is spent figuring out how to do things that will only have to be done once. Traditionally, you would have spent time in search engines or StackOverflow trying to figure it out. Now AI is acting as a type of advanced search engine for you.

So your work is like the ideal use case for AI.

That's not really true. Science is a tool for testing hypotheses. It doesn't really care where the hypothesis comes from. In this case, the hypothesis is that the human brain can be perfectly simulated by a Turing Machine, which is a reasonable hypothesis.

If they just accepted that as true, it would be unscientific. But if they actually test their hypothesis, it's not unscientific.

At the time when he said that, the number was closer to 90% than to half.

Now it's easier to target, and easier to figure out which advertising is wasted.

A random generator will eventually create the works of Shakespeare.

A current LLM will never create the works of Shakespeare.

For those who didn't follow it, it's not that it's a contact binary that is so neat in and of itself, it's that when they modeled it, they determined that, the collision that formed it was less than 5 meters per second (less than 11 mph / 18 kph). Like a parking lot fender bender, but with the cars being ~750 billion tonnes.

Currently you are overrating AI. There are circumstances where it's the right choice, and circumstances where it isn't. But the point keeps changing.

wtf I had never heard of Zizians, they claim to be rationalists but seem completely insane.

Well, yes. Because it enables people to take precautions against it. But it sure doesn't prove it won't happen.

Note: It doesn't even have to be done with malicious intent. Lots of people just write really unexpected prompts. The more you have doing that, the more edge cases you have.

It's not the "AI slop", it's "the slop". People are quite capable of generating slop. So you must rate the contributors on their history, not on what tool they choose to use.

But if they don't use AI to filter the contributions, they're likely to drown in slop. The problem is the false negatives.

FWIW, I think master/slave means controller/controlled. And it's shorter (though not by much). Blacklist I'm less clear about. (I can pretty much guess most of the meaning, but edge cases leave me uncertain.)

NASA already has this. No need to wait 10 days.

And that's a problem. Python survived Guido's abdication, but what are the plans for Linux?

Welp, I can assure you that when I question authority, I am not doing it to gain my own power. I am anarchist to the core.