A small percentage of a few billion people is a big problem.

Yes, regardless of whether their name is Muhammed or Breivik.

Why not here? Because for starters, humanism isn't a religion (and I say that as a humanist). It's a philosophical stance within atheism. And atheism is the absence of religion** (it's literally right there in the name), not a religion. You can't claim "religious" exemptions as an atheist. What this person actually wants is a philosophical exemption, akin to, say, a vegetarian wanting an exemption from having to cook meat at a restaurant or whatnot.

** - Well, except for those atheists who worship Athe.

Yeah, nothing insular about the Amish.

(Oh wait...)

The world is a complicated place. Broad categories like the ones I gave will cover a lot of common things, but can't cover everything. Nothing is black-and-white, there are always shades of gray.

Futures and Options qualify as "derivatives" from real assets. They DO sit in a middle ground so they get classified as "speculation" which isn't quite investing and isn't quite gambling. Most of the time for most people, it doesn't matter. Investing is how people come to own the means of production, which is a foundation of wealth-building in a capitalist society. Someone who never invests (in good old-fashioned stocks) because they think it is "gambling" is seriously mismanaging their money and may remain trapped in poverty their entire lives because of it. Someone who spends a lot of money on lottery tickets regularly and considers that "investing" is going to wind up in a similar position.

The world of Futures and Options and other fanciness is for people who want to take their financial knowledge and engagement to the next level. It's a whole step beyond the distinction and advice that I was originally talking about. A veritable subject change.

Incidentally, CFDs and hedge betting have little-to-no institutional hedging, so they function a lot more like gambling (even more so than derivatives). These are generally private contracts with a broker, making them structurally more similar to the operation of a casino. I read that in UK and Ireland, they ARE legally classified as gambling, and generally not legal in the USA. So, despite their unique structure, they fall pretty firmly into the "gambling" category. And, as I said before, they are simply not relevant to ordinary people who just want to be financially healthy, put their kids through school and save up for retirement, so they don't need to complicate the conversation.

No its not. AI is a significant element of achieving technological singularity. Its a huge part of how we get there. It couldn't possibly be MORE relevant.

Clearly we haven't achieved AGI or "other big promises" yet. But the LLMs we now have are totally new and way better than the sorts of AI techniques we have had before. It's a step forward.

Headline from 1845.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity.

Ironically, you could have just asked Gemini what I was talking about.

Agreed. If you don't know what you're doing it's hard to even ask for the right thing or know what's possible. For example: I'm currently developing a system that uses a local AI to help debug internal issues. The initial incarnations of it were very slow to start up each command; clearly, it wasn't doing proper KV caching and was having to prefill every turn; it required patches on the llama.cpp fork and our API wrapper, and also adjusting the system prompt to keep variable content at the end. But if you have no idea about KV caching issues, how do you even know something is wrong with the backend, let alone what to tell the AI to fix? You'll end up deciding you need to upgrade the GPU instead.

(That said: "lovingly handcrafted" code is a hilarious phrase that should give any developer who's ever worked on a big corporate software project the giggles, and also, these software devs are clearly people angry at knowing they're going to be let go looking for revenge by badmouthing their boss to the press)

No it's not. The semantic distinction is subtle, but significant:

1. Gambling is when you purchase a "chance to play".
2. Investing is when you purchase a legal ownership stake of a legal business.

That is THE difference. It is true that both actions involve risk-taking, and making guesses about the future. But "risk taking and making guesses about the future" is not the key element to the definition of "gambling" in this context. The act of purchasing a chance to play and nothing else is what makes it "gambling." The act of purchasing an ownership stake in a real business is what makes it investing.

A failure to understand this distinction is one thing that can and does keep people trapped in poverty.

On the one hand, its not "uninformed or coping" since it is objectively true right now. Maybe that will change in the future, but until it changes, we still need humans reviewing the code, right now, and that's a fact.

On the other hand, Singularity here we come! Woooooooo!

Escape from Pluto is much easier, and the Pluto-Charon distance is 1/20th of the Earth-Moon distance.

People who don't like the toxicity of social media can stop using it. Problem solved, next!

People who don't like AI slop filling up news articles can switch to a different news source (or, heaven forbid, create one of their own!). Problem solved, next!

If you agree that kids shouldn't have cell phones during school due to the distractions, and that social media is harmful to kids, then what's the problem here? Looks like "the world" is taking appropriate action on that front already. Problem being solved, next!

I think there *is* a greater problem in that huge numbers of people aren't recognizing this and remain caught-up in the toxicity and misinformation and radicalization and etc. that is going on online, and their poor judgment is motivating them to take actions that are harmful, to themselves and others, politically and economically. That problem has me concerned, but we aren't going to fix it by killing the Internet.

I have worked with junior level devs who just take a dev task's requirements, hand it straight to AI, put that through basic testing (only the main intended cases) and then offer that up as a finished solution. The solution was, of course, full of holes, some of them quite serious, just not obvious. The holes were in the edge cases and how it handles and recovers from errors. These were exactly the kinds of mistakes I would expect a junior level developer to make (in at least one case I am thinking of, the task shouldn't have even been handed to someone so inexperienced, but the people making that decision didn't really know how advanced the task was and anyway the dev wanted to get real experience).

So, our process worked because we had senior level human code review, which caught these. But the real risk here is that without such experienced senior level people to do that review this would have seemed like a "slam dunk" where AI saved a whole lot of time and eliminated the need for expensive veterans on the team (only to fail catastrophically in production as soon as something hiccupped). This is what I am most concerned about. Companies will fall for this. Especially new companies where leadership is just as inexperienced at running a tech business as the cheap vibe coders they hire.

So if we are hiring people who will be using AI to do most of the coding work, I think we need to test the thoroughness of their thinking, their ability to detect unspoken problematic edge cases and know to focus on them when reviewing the AIs output, and the ability to recognize dangerous vagueness in requirements and ask for clarity. Also, the ability to mentally translate between "business speak" and "tech speak" is extremely valuable.

Though I still don't feel right about skipping a proof of coding skills. I just don't think we are yet at the point where it is safe for someone who can't code to be relying on AI to get it right. The aforementioned senior developers doing the code review are all people who have been coding by hand for years, and in order for such people to continue being available to do code reviews in the future, we need to make sure we hire people who can do this.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.