AI-generated code is just this generation's version of copying code from the web or from another part of the codebase. Sometimes that person understood the code fully, and sometimes they just checked to see if the output matched what they expected.

The only uniquely dangerous thing about this recent iteration of that problem is the massive scale.

No, CEOs are trying to show their board, investors, and activist investors that they have a plan for how to take advantage of AI and can at least keep up with their competitors use of AI, if not surpass them. I work at a large enterprise (close to 50k employees) and VPs are being told that they need to find ways for AI to have an impact on their department or their leaders will find someone who can. If it isn't happening fast enough consultants are brought in to take over their department's transformative roadmap and leaders who can't keep up are relegated to being SMEs until they are eventually replaced. I'm not in the room when that message is given, but I've seen the rapid shift of VPs who were raising alarms nearly immediately turn into AI cheerleaders.

If you work for a publicly traded or VC backed company I assure you your CEO does not have a choice on whether to jump on the AI bandwagon. That's not how hype driven bubbles work.

What is sudden about this? CEOs have been doing this for over two years (at least). Duolingo and Klarna were among the first, and both of those were in Q1 2024. This is not new behavior.

Sora was useless because the primary value from video generation is porn. Anyone not willing to allow porn shouldn't be wasting their time on GenAI video R&D.

Every company has values. A value is simply a judgement about what is important. Maximizing shareholder value is absolutely a company value (probably the most common one). Maximizing customer, employee, or society value would be different values a company could have. There are plenty of companies that focus on customer or society value, but they are usually nonprofit. If someone is investing in a company they usually expect to be the most import stakeholder to the company.

Most companies don't actually document their company values. They use principles like Integrity and Excellence that are simply core principles that every company should strive for. You can tell if your company's values are "real" if you could imagine another successful company having nearly opposite values (without breaking the law).

Not every company should appeal to every investor, employee, or company. I wanted to work for companies in my youth that worked me to the bone while accelerating my career growth. Now that I have a family I want to work for a company that respects my personal time. I'm glad there are companies out there with different values so I was able to choose employers who aligned with my values at the time.

The believe the main reason is because semiannually is the standard in the rest of the Western world, so if a change is made it makes sense to align with that. About half of EU public companies now file semiannually after they changed their regulations in 2013.

It doesn't just screw over the little guy. It screws over retirees that are in the phase of their life where they are selling assets for income.

That's not the same thing. The question was perhaps a little vague but it was still pretty clear he meant paying more than the sticker price.

I can't be sure if that was sarcasm, but that myth about Ford's rationale for paying higher wages is not true. Ford was dealing with 370% annual turnover and had to do something to keep people in such mind-numbing repetitious jobs. Within a year of increasing wages turnover dropped to 16% and production levels increased 40% (mostly because they could consistently fill third shift positions).

Its primary name is still the Department of Defense. Trump's executive order just made Department of War an official secondary name. People just use it because they know how petty Trump is.

They haven't done anything to the goalposts. They have just ignored them.

If you were paying the bill you'd act the same way. How many things that you don't use or need anymore do you keep paying for just to help someone maintain their income (not out of laziness and forgetting to cancel)?

I will periodically take a look at my spending and cut back on things I don't think are necessary. I do that regardless of whether I got a big bonus that year. This apparently means I have no soul in your worldview.

This is the tough paradox when people claim AI is useful or useless. Almost no one who thinks AI is useless has spend a few hundred hours to learn how to use it, or at least spent that time over six months ago when the models weren't as capable. I basically feel anyone who hasn't used AI for at least 100 hours in the past 3 months (~8 hours per week) has no idea how capable AI is right now, and that will also be true 3 months from now.

The situation for professionals is similar to how it is for companies. Even if AI isn't working well for you now, if you ever stop trying you will be at a big disadvantage once it does get good enough. And there is no guarantee it will ever be useful for them, so it's a tough decision to make.

No one is surprised people have moved away from the radio. But it's still important to track the progress. It has significant impact on marketing and other investments. It would be wrong to think no one is still listening to radio just because there are options many people feel are objectively better.

Did NPR not report on the recent Iran war? I have moved to podcasts a while ago but find it hard to believe NPR ignored it happened.

I had Claude Opus comb through all NPR coverage of the war over the past couple days, and it found 21 articles on their site. Its estimate was that 48% of the content was Neutral / Straight News, 43% was Negative / Critical of U.S.-Israel, and 9% was Positive / Supportive of U.S.-Israel (most articles were a combination of each).

What has your analysis of NPR's coverage of the Iran war revealed that conflicts with my narrative?