> Because it is just a fancy calculator.

> Because it is just a fancy SMS auto-corrector.

Fixed that for you.

> Yes, AI will struggle with doing full tasks unsupervised

Which means it's NOT the panacea the people investing all the hope and money and FIRINGS into think it will be.

> But it can still do most of the work for many tasks

But, stripped of your hand-wavy unquantified wish-fulfilment-wishing, HOW MOST? WELL? How MANY tasks?

> It just needs supervision by someone who understands the task

1) Which means you STILL NEED THE PERSON.

2) And in the future, how do we get people who understand the task and have the supervision-level skills if they DON'T DO THE TASKS THEMSELVES?

Do you work in some environment where the managers and supervisors actually understand the ground-level work as well as the people who've been DOING the ground-level work? If so, good for you, spread the joy. If, as more likely, NOT, then, what the hell do you think is going to make it better when we don't have any supervisors in the future who will do the ground-level work to understand the tasks?

> Sometimes the problem is the AI making incorrect assumptions about the task (it wasn't fully framed), sometimes as stated in the summary, the AI context window is too small, so it forgets things, and sometimes it just chooses a really bad approach.

All I heard was "three problems that were never fixed before they rushed this garbage to market and started firing people".

> I have been using Claude Code a lot recently. It's really good at summarizing existing code.

How big a codebase have you given it to analyse and how are you measuring "good at summarising"? How big a program can you give it before it doesn't understand a f___ing thing? Because I've seen people using inhouse, Perplexity and ChatGPT to analyse code and it still fails to understand the point of single-screen scripts.

> It's good at specific targeted changes. It's pretty bad at designing solutions.

All I'm hearing at "it does classification and detection tasks like neural nets and more importantly, the maths functions neural nets really are do".

Plus "It's good at changing a specific targeted thing my own fingers could've done faster if I weren't so invested in translating the problem into an English space and typing out the less-precise English to the literally brainless AI".

> I find that while it's usually still faster than doing it manually, I often have to point out where there's a better (usually simpler) solution.

1) Which means you-and-it are putting out much, much more slop a lot faster. Thank you ohsomuch for your contribution to the world.

2) Also going back to the METR study that says developers thought it made them ~20% faster when it was in fact making them ~20% SLOWER for a net enshittification of ~40%.

> So AI doesn't replace the human, but when used correctly, it makes the human more productive.

Producing WHAT? Crap? Forty percent slower when taking 40% more time into doing it yourself would've produced much better code, if you'd bothered to exercise the grey cells? Thank you for the best argument to start investing AI-levels of money into, oh, I don't know, f__king EDUCATION.

Not to mention, your conclusion is based on a whole bunch of premises where we've seen massive problems. Which - and maybe what, you need to ask the AI to work this out for you? - is a logically giant problem meaning the conclusion is worthless. Which is yet another argument for investing AI-levels of money into, oh, I don't know, f__king EDUCATION.

> If instead of having a human do the task manually and compare that to the time taken for a human to supervise AI doing the task, you'll probably find for many that the human can do a lot more with AI. (Yes, I know some studies have shown the opposite, but I think that's mostly people not understanding how to effectively manage AI, which may take some experience and training.)

1) because when the product that is the AI-entity is mainstreamed, *everybody* will be so incredibly well educated on how to manage it. Like every other tool currently on the planet. Yes, both kinds of tools.

2) I'm sorry, did you just say we should "start investing AI-levels of money into, oh, I don't know, f__king EDUCATION"?

3) "You'll probably find for many that the human can do a lot more with AI" which fails to cover the "quality of output" argument.

4) And your argument dismisses, with nothing more than a literal "but I think"-grade anecdote with ZERO DATA, the ACTUAL DATA of "some published studies have shown the opposite".

> But AI is far better at almost everything that it was a year ago. So even if it's 2.5% now, it may be 25% next year and 90% a year later. We're living in interesting times.

And given we know LLMs hallucinate more as they're given more data, given we know AIs feeding AIs leads to slop-meltdown, it may be 0.25% next year and 0.09% a year later. And that's JUST as likely as the unfounded supposition you've presented here.

> We're living in interesting times.

That's the secret, Cap. We're always living in "interesting times". Even the late-19th-early-20th century sense of the term. Especially right goddamn now.

Do I sound like a downer or an AI-luddite? Maybe. At this point I don't care anymore, because actual studies, data, analysis, evidence and consequent logic - not to mention plenty of anecdotes we can find just as easily - are on that side too.

I mean, I doubt you're an AI, simply because the English in your text was better. But the grade of LOGIC in your entire text was... well as bad as an LLM. Or for that matter, as bad as the logic of an AI-booster. Or polite but still zealous religious zealot. Or average human being, because we don't invest AI-levels of money into, oh, I don't know, f__king healthcare and EDUCATION.

Reading these comments, I've seen three inflammatory, low-content comments, in response to people giving specific details about their old and new attempts at getting Windows to solve their problems:

> Bullshit Broadcom wifi anyone?
> Somehow I think you're bullshitting....
> I do amateur radio including doing similar to that and don't have an issue. Methinks you need to update your knowledge.

After the third one, I go back to find them and see what-a-surprise they're all from the same user. Which means I think you're the one who is bullshit just like your knowledge.

I'd give my anecdotes about diagnosing Windows hardware problems with Linux, or using Linux/Cygwin for fixing software problems, or the lack of driver problems I've had in the last one-to-two decades, because I started using computers in 1986 and started using Linux around 1997 but you don't strike me as some kind of blind shill rather than somebody open to trafficking in real non-dogma data.

... a private organisation is benefitting in transactions and activity from THE WHITE HOUSE, whilst the person in charge of both is the SAME PERSON, and you seriously have the planet-sized balls to ask "what transactions or activity demonstrate corruption and grift"?
My country's about 18 ranks above yours in that Perceptions Index and damn, but am I glad to be nowhere near your to-be-golden-domed rathole country.

Well, once you count out all the days he spends playing golf.

> nothing but a man of non-stop action
All those scenes of him falling asleep in the White House.

> and now bringing a despot President to justice
After all those years of flying hard to Underage Island and watching a baby get murdered out by the lake. Dang.

> always gets the job done
Like ending the Ukraine Russia war in the first 24 hours after his election.

> The proof is in the pudding
Which is now in the shit in the gold toilet bowl. Or y'know running down the tube to the bag strapped to his leg.

And before you whine to me about Kamala: couldn't care less. Not American. Not even in the same hemisphere as your diseased despot country, thankfully.

Well, it was a law action rather than a war action. Because certainly the US didn't just declare war on Venezuela, did it?

Would that be with or without the handcuffs, blindfold and internationally illegal murder and kidnapping?

So, what are the signs that tell you somebody DOESN'T have TDS?

What test does someone take that tells you if they have something to criticise about Trump, it's factual and you should listen?

Sorry, non-American here, just flicking through Wikipedia's list of "List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century"... when has America NOT been at war...?

Do not live in Trump's hemisphere and frankly the only reason I don't hope he gets the Charlie Kirk treatment is because I want to see him executed for treason. Because, Trump is a madman.

... I... meant... invading America in order to replace THAT island-visiting murder-watching brain-decaying"gold-leaf" tinpot-dictator and that this would be great for America and the world.

... Elon? Is that you?

> That's what ChatGPT PLUS told me.

Is your gun alright after you did yourself in the foot there so hard?

Well, for a couple of seconds.