If we build it, then it will frictionlessly tell us what to build.

This reminds me of a segment I saw about 15 or 20 years ago on a show called "How It's Made" that played on a channel like the Discovery Channel (before all cable became reality TV).

The segment was "How CRTs are Made". I was kind of surprised that CRTs were still being made, but I was especially surprised by the fact that they appeared to be American workers in the factory. They were doing everything pretty much by hand with no automation, and they were making some rather skinny looking CRTs. The show never elaborated on what the CRTs were for, but they sure didn't look like TVs.

I dug into it a bit after that using some clues I noticed in the show, and found out that these were cockpit displays for F15s or similar military aircraft. It's probably an item that you just don't go changing the specs on, and they understandably aren't going to farm out to TCL. I can't imagine how much each one cost, though. And I certainly wouldn't try to rack it up as a "win" for any of GWB's or Obama's trade policies.

It gave me the numbers for the various trials. I don't have them handy and I didn't run them manually - so the AI could totally have made it all up. I did not keep the numbers so I have nothing to share.

Sure - it's just a hypothesis.

I do not recall the details! But I did watch as the damn AI did repeat wall clock and sample tests to see where the time was going and try 2-4 different approaches and clocked each one in detail. I felt embarrassed because I *could* do all that and certainly had done it in the past - but it would have taken me a *long* time to set up each tests and analyze the results and try over and over and track the results for each.
As you imply - none of this is particularly tricky - it's mostly just labor intensive and time consuming. And those are both things that AI has no trouble with.

Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?

Related - when I tell an agent to optimize for performance - especially if the request is well targeted - it does an *amazing* job. Doing performance work is so well defined and described that it can follow the patterns and do all the checks and get it really right. To do a good job it's really repetitive and there are often a lot of angles to check and .. it just does it really well.

This is why I say that users shouldn't be the target of the training. HR, marketing, and the C-suite should all be forced to take classes in how to NOT send scammy mail. DON'T send internal mail that links to an external site. DON'T send internal mail with an external From: line. DON'T send mail asking your employees to reply with passwords, encryption keys, or BitLocker recovery codes. DON'T use Mail Chimp or a similar email processing house for internal mail. I've seen all of these things done, and every single one of them trains your employees that it's okay to click on any arbitrary link because they expect legit internal mail to contain any arbitrary link.

It looks like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

You keep using that word in the narrow terms of a computer programmer who just finished a training course where they drilled in the technical meanings of "authorization" vs "authentication".

However, a news article for the general public is not constrained by that context. The dictionary says that "authorization" in general is permission to do something. If you prompt an AI to do one thing with your bank account, then you didn't give it permission to do something else entirely, even if it got the logon credentials to do so. It wasn't authorized by you to do the other thing.

Here's another example: It's wartime and you got drafted. Usually you're not allowed to kill people, but the government handed you a gun and you're now authorized to kill enemy soldiers. That doesn't mean that you can just shoot your comrade next to you in the trench. And you certainly can't make the claim "But I was authorized to shoot Corporal Smith. You gave me a gun, after all!"

Consider a human analogy: In many cases, people give financial advisors access to one or more of their accounts so that the advisor can make trades or other transactions for the benefit of their clients. However, if an advisor suddenly starts making transactions that do not benefit the clients or are contrary to their agreed instructions, then that activity is unauthorized, even if they have login credentials.

****1/2 "Customers say that this is a great small modular nuclear reactor. They like the compact size and the fact that it's not too much power for a data center or industrial site. They especially appreciate the ease of setup and that the ultimate waste disposal question has been deferred yet again so that they don't have to worry about it. However, some customers report problems with cost overruns, vaporware, and availability of suitable fuel. Some customers note a larger terrorist attack surface per megawatt relative to full-sized reactors and question the security arrangements. There are also reports of real-world reliability problems with the novel design, with one customer reporting a catastrophic meltdown in their urban installation."

What have you got against Nazis?

This is like Trump promising $5K if republicans win the midterms. It's just a PR stunt.

Imagine trying to reason out the tax implications of something like this. The privacy implications. Everything.

Elon: "I really wanted to, but lawyers wouldn't let me!"

No way to see that coming.

The *WHIPLASH* of these two statements:

'Improvements to LinkedIn's detection systems have resulted in a 40% decline in views of content classified as AI slop, the platform said last month. That's not to say LinkedIn is entirely opposed to AI, Roth said, adding that "not everyone is a born communicator."'

YET -

'Roth said. "A lot of times now today, they'll run it through Claude or Gemini or wherever, they'll post it on LinkedIn and it will perform poorly. And then they come to the team and they're like, 'Why did this do badly?'" Roth said. "And the best thing you can do is give it back to them and be like, 'Did you enjoy reading this? Do you see yourself in this?"'

Essentialism is lame; people are born as a human. So participate. Learn to speak. Learn to read. Don't be illiterate. Don't be inmumerate. Rise above. Master yourself, and in so doing, emancipate yourself.

Use your self-awareness to improve and add to the palette of skills and abilities through your life.

It's not that hard. And I'm a programmer, so you *KNOW* I am the ultra-laziest in terms of applying time and space to problems (aka optimization!).

I get that different people have different priorities, but -- in the way that a radio transceiver is useful IF you know things like frequency, signalling mechanics, signalling protocol -- humans learn languages and use that to reason. To not develop your mind, is to throw away your greatest strength.

"To continue to this site, please enter the value of a zero of the Reimann Zeta Function for which the real part is not equal to 1/2 and the imaginary part is not equal to zero: [ ] + i[ ]"