I think the possible adverse impacts to society would not be outweighed by something that small.

Ehh, I liked Universe a lot, and I never could get into the main Stargate series.

Um, if there's one group that's not lazy, it's farmers.

What were more likely to see is Congress passing a law to somehow ban this.

A lot of armchair strategizing here seems to be based on the theory "he won't dare to do that back!"

The CIA can't just make arrests on US soil. They actually do need the FBI to do that. That's another form of oversight.

Great point. It's also really unclear how many Mythos found that are not/would not be found by open weight models.

This is pure marketing FUD, which is one of Anthropic's most advanced forms of "intelligence".

This has to be the most obnoxious demonstration of why open source software culture is the greatest impediment to mainstream adoption of open source software that I've seen in a while.

There was no way to know it was a grift. Unless of course you saw every other obvious grift he had run on his followers for years before.

"Nothing can be fixed while people continue to believe there's a difference between Team Red and Team Blue when the same people own both Team Red and Team Blue"

Yeah, people have been spouting that off for decades. The funny thing is, whenever Team Red or Team Blue is in charge you see a real difference.

I've also never heard the dorm room philosophers who think both parties are the same ever explain exactly why if the same people own both Team Red and Team Blue why the billionaires spend so much time, money, and energy trying to get Team Red into office. Shouldn't they just relax?

While I agree that many in the industry want the cheapest and the fastest to build regardless of quality, my question is about the demand side.

Who wants these apps? What is is that they do that someone is willing to pay for? How does that address the cost of the other inputs that make apps worth enough money or other rewards that someone wants to maintain them?

We are 18 years out from the launch of iPhone App store, and even though humans are far slower than AI in building apps, after nearly two decades I don't think there are massive parts of human activity that are un-apped. In pharmaceutical development, the dearth of "undrugged diseases" has led pharma companies to focus on rare and orphan diseases - bringing VERY high cost drugs to market to serve small numbers of people.

Where are the "orphan applications" that these apps are there to serve?

Vibecoding a delivery app stack will not make DoorDash obsolete - somebody still has to recruit drivers and food sellers and offer something to each of those parties that makes them want to drop DoorDash. DoorDash may be able to automate away some labor (though I suspect it will be less than they think).

In the enterprise, the theoretical "un-automated work" seems to be in two main buckets:
1- making presentations, dashboards, documents automatically, and
2 - building software automatically

Both of these clearly have some value, but I think the AI boffins and investors are wildly overlooking all of the human stuff that goes along with those tasks.

Also, it's obvious that AI makes that kind of stuff a commodity, meaning that its value goes down as its volume increases. So yeah, AI can make a lot of slop, but it's not obvious how that makes there be more valuable stuff.

Yeah, agreed. I actually am really struggling to understand how they think there is demand for this kind of thing. Is there market research where someone says "sure, I don't care who's talking, just as long as the content is a topic that I am plausibly interested in and the _conversation_ is not too jarring".
It's true that people will watch AI slop on YouTube; my guess is that is the demand signal they are responding to.

I have once watched an AI generated YouTube video (really it was weird graphics over an audio that sounded like Richard Feynman reading) and I found the explainer vaguely interesting enough to continue watching in the background for 20 min while I worked. I guess that channel got a few ad impressions off my eyeballs for that.

So I can see notionally how this kind of slop might win over some other slop in a transactional zero-sum way, but I really can't see how any of the typical marketing stuff - audience building, brand development, downstream sales conversions, fits in with AI-generated, undifferentiated commodity content. Isn't the whole idea of an influencer that the audience wants a person to connect them to content?

Maybe it will work, but my guess is it will just result in a lot more content that one has to wade through. I'm sure someone will have an AI solution to that. Turn that Hamster wheel up to ludicrous speed!

"Musk set up OpenAI as an OPEN SOURCE NON PROFIT because he is paranoid about AI."

OpenAI was set up as a nonprofit by numerous people, stop trying to pull a Tesla and turn Musk into the sole founder.

That just means our security was good. You little anecdote isn't actual data.

I mean maybe he's right, but I would always take with a grain of salt a software package creator's opinion on how awesome his software package is.