I always look to people with degrees in 'community development' to tell me whether there are enough spooks in my computer science or not; it's just good sense.

If it's dissociality and/or disinhibition without an LLM fetish it's just an ICD-11 personality disorder.

Saying that, much less in public in a way that suggests you either think that it will be helpful or that people will view you as being helpful, seems like strong evidence of an AICD-11 personality disorder.

Why, exactly, are we listening to someone who passed through software engineering on his way into management claiming that software engineers(presumably now his direct reports) are the most spoiled profession and how it's just terrible that nobody is willing to spend several years working for peanuts to get experience(because the argument from race to the bottom is persuasive now?)

He then meanders over to the theory that if you are a real actually-good software engineer your job is clearly safe, because AI isn't set to replace you; ignoring the fact that entire teams, competent and all, get wiped out when the money sloshes a different way all the time; and 'AI' has seen some cataclysmic levels of frankly irrational money sloshing by some mixture of conmen, cultists, and the good old 'animal spirits' of that definitely rational market.

It's basically the same story about 'web developers' who learned how to knock together some HTML at a bootcamp somewhere, or 'IT' back when that was something where the money attracted some people who had no interest, warmed over and presented as novel; with a side helping of boundless(but notably vague) optimism about all the cool new AI-things that are being created that will need real engineers at some point.

Honestly, it's almost impressive how he manages to be so grating while being so vacuous.

If you study any field enough to know who the right people are, then you can invest in it. For example Elon Musk hired people like Tom Mueller --an experienced propulsion engineer, to build the first rocket engine for SpaceX. OpenAI was started by people without much AI experience but hired people like Ilya Sutskever who had worked on projects like AlexNet. Elon Musk started Neuralink without any training on brain-computer-interface by consulting/hiring people from Krishna Shenoy's lab.

Sometimes it's a matter of corralling the right people together to work on a problem, funding it, and making sure they're operating cohesively.

And biotech. We have a lot to advance in biotech, we can't cure cancer or dementia. Curing dementia should be a priority given how many old politicians we have.

The word "seems" in the sentence "They are drawn to it because they feel burned by the traditional system and want a fresh start with something that seems more modern and less manipulative." is so load-bearing I can only hope that the author is also a structural engineer.

To a darkly hilarious extent 'fintech' is more or less entirely regulatory arbitrage with a light skin of 'apps'.

I wonder how many people remember that article or know it nowadays. Too bad the characters got messed up in your post .. probably why it didnt get modded up.

That's the Science process. People make mistakes, and their results can't be reproduced. New papers are written to point out the errors. A study finds out why the results could not be repeated, and new knowledge has been gained.

Instead of improving the process of error correction, your idea seems to be to not do Science at all, because if no peer-reviewed papers are produced, there are no peer-reviewed papers which can't be reproduced, right?

So, on the minus side we've got people trying to game the system. On the more-minus side; the way they are trying to game the system suggests that peer review has, at least in part, been farmed out to chatbots because it's easier. Fantastic.

"A tandem charge the size of a solar system" isn't really the reassuring correction I was hoping for; to be honest.

Thankfully, you can sustain national greatness just by shouting belligerently about it; the idea that you actually need competence or execution is just a con; so this should have no side effects whatsoever.

He still can't prove his claims. No need to debunk him. And just because he was able to point out errors in some of the papers that tried to correct him, he wasn't proven right in any way. Errare humanum est, and you can be wrong in so many ways that most of them contradict each other. This does not make any of them more right than the others.

Of all I accused him, this is the only thing you noticed? And your argument boils down to "I can't be a racist. Some of my servants are black."

Probably not great news that someone further up the Kardashev scale remains a fan of double tap strikes.