I don't disagree with any of that. I see a lot of LLM and agents being thrown at problems we used to have much more tailored tools for that did at least as good a job, while consuming a tiny and by some comparisons almost immeasurably small amount of compute resources.

You're not wrong, Word 6 on a 486 with less than handful of megabytes of memory was able to perform grammar checking on word doc. Now you need 10s of gigs of primary storage, perhaps as much as 50 gigs of secondary storage between the model and the office suite. How much better a job it actually does is disputable. The experience is different, and a no-knowledge user can get started immediately. There is value there in both aspects. I don't see people who get paid access thru and employer etc to claude, gpt, etc stop using it or ignore it.

You're asking a deeper question though, how does that no-knowledge user become someone who understands the system when the system is getting bigger all the time and the short term incentives to learn anything about it get smaller smaller. I don't know. There is a lot of scifi on the subject, dated from before 2020, so thinking without being colored by recent economic interests, probably worth reading.

I love when the jackals start fighting each other..

As Eric Raymond (ESR) says, AI is a force multiplier. My elaboration: If you are good at what you do, it will let you do accomplish more good stuff faster. If you are not very bright, AI will let you be not bright more efficiently, but it won't make you bright. It's just a tool. It needs to be utilized correctly. There is no shortage of things in this world that can do tremendous damage if not used properly. AI is nothing new in that regard.

"AI slop" is so 2024. That argument isn't valid any more.

I'm surprised you didn't use the word "slop". Spewing a bunch of slogans that would have to be more clever to make it on to bumper stickers makes you look like the people you are complaining about. There are legitimate criticisms to make about AI, and ways to support and defend those arguments. You are not doing that.

Exactly, my top use of AI is probably, this prompt:

Please review the document below for typographical and grammatical errors and make the required edits. Do not suggest edits that simply alter style or tone. You may make clarity changes, such as splitting a compound sentence into two separate thoughts or exchanging a pronoun for the proper noun it references. Replacing a less specific nouns such as 'thing' and 'it', with a more concrete noun being referenced; as long as it will not read as overly verbose is appropriate. Finally suggest verb replacements where there is a more appropriate term of art, as and example it would be reasonable to rewrite "Next run the code." with "Next execute the code." Make all your changes with tracking enabled so I can review and accept any proposed edits.

I don't think that makes the document any less your own than having a human copy editor conduct a similar review which has been done since forever.

Perhaps the EU needs to import more H1-B type talent to develop this new alternative.

We've seen how well it has worked out for us here in the US...[rolls eyes].

Maybe it is due to people who have enough money to have cars worth stealing from.....have moved OUT of the hellhole that CA is rapidly becoming, especially SF.

Less targets means less of that type of crime.

You never seem to want to differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, like with your citations....I'd believe the number cited for legal migration, but the overwhelming vast majority are sick of the illegals here and happy that Trump for the most part has completely shut off the previously porous southern border.

Which is nonsense. There is nothing new under the sun. People have been kicking off interactions to complex to fully imagine all possible outcomes for as long as we have had laws, and the law has had approaches to assigning responsibility anyway.

Say you are back country camping in a national park. You absolutely can be held responsible if your campfire gets out of control and you start a forest fire, and you are found to have acted 'carelessly'. Even if you had a back country permit, and even if the park rules allow campfires.

We are not in uncharted territory here as how to apply standards like negligence. We may very well have gaps in our current law where various hacking and electronic abuse laws don't cover a negligent mens rea, but that could be easily fixed. It just takes little amendment to change a 'knowingly' to 'negligently' and its fixed. What we lack is a public will to hold these people accountable for anything. This is I think why they are so desperate to go public even while their actual financials SUCK...They want to cerement themselves as TBTF entities.

Census by the founders includes *every person* not just citizens. Disagree with the founding fathers on that one eh? Also there is an easy thing to do with people who are illegal, just make them legal. Reagan knew there isnt a practical alternative and now a new generation will have to learn that.

Nope....I liked Reagan a LOT, but he fucked up really badly on that one thing allowing an amnesty....caused a rush on the border...Hey everyone isn't perfect and he fucked that one.

Fuck legalizing them....send them all back and try to come in the legal way. I'm not against streamlining and reforming our immigration system to legally come here, but even with that we should be choosy about who we let in, only those that will benefit the US and show they will be likely to meld into the melting pot and become US citizens.

We need to set up system around work that will pretty much lock out ANY person here that is not here legally....I hate the thought of a national ID, but if something similar to it had to be in place to root out all the illegals, make it impossible to work and live here, I'd be for it.

And maybe we need to amend the constitution and ONLY count citizens and ONLY allow most things for citizens....let's make it as unattractive and difficult as possible for illegal immigrants.

Three we are going to see a bump in immigration to the US as the Republican's have made immigration enforcement a total disaster...

Disaster?

I hardly think so....they have gotten the PR wrong in many cases, but I and lots of folks appreciate the efforts and accomplishments so far.

The main problem is, we're not rounding up and deporting illegals fast enough in large enough numbers.

But progress is progress and we're already starting to see some change in good numbers.

One nice side effect will be, hopefully, if we can deport enough NON citizens, they won't be counted in the next census and the reapportionment of house seats to more represent actual CITIZENS in states will come about....

Open up more housing to citizens with illegals gone out of places....and take huge fiscal burden off our government services (education, medical, etc)....with them off the roles being a burden.

You can suggest that, but you are saying "give up your close ties to family/friends/social life", and "move further from your job, or find a new one". Obviously if they really want kids they will make it work, but it's the ones who would like them but are not willing to give up so much of their lives, and limit themselves to one or zero.

Im saying exactly that....if need be, you MOVE to where life is better in general.

Grow up, be an adult make adult decisions.

When exactly did people start being such pussies and afraid to move out on their own...? This wasn't so unusual only a few decades back.

Hell in pioneer days....married couples would load up the wagon and head west often to never see family again.....

That's a bit extreme but is shows mankind often moves to where it is best to live.....when did people get so afraid to leave mommy and daddy? Can people not make friends in new places?

People act like it's a big deal.

Ever since I went out of state to college...I've almost never lived back in my home city or state....it's been great and no downside whatsoever....

I don't see what the big fucking problem ius with kids today.

I have a VERY tight loving family I grew up with, parents, cousins....I still have lifelong friends there and along the way in all states I've lived in.

Moving doesn't mean the end of relationships, just changes....

From observation and what I read...it seems that largely, at least in the US....it is liberal women/couples choosing to NOT have kids the most and birth rates amoung conservatives are rising in some cases....

Good deal that means over time...the liberals will self select themselves out of society....win win.

Really though, children are a huge commitment that, when done properly, requires you basically remake your life around what is best for a stable family unit for the next 20 years and really, once you have a kid, you'll always be a parent.

Err....well, that's been the common, well known NORMAL way of humans since the beginning till about...well, maybe 10-15 years ago when people went off the rails and norms went down the drain?

I mean, no one questioned this at all in all of humanity till just recently......

I think more than anything this is due to toxic feminism which has been fermenting to a head in recent years.....woman are going against what nature tells them and we have society backing that up.

But I get surprised to hear people today stating what you just did sounding like it is a foreign concept someone is newly trying to push on society?