Maybe we shouldn't let billionaires make all the decisions for us.

Yea, it's the "2 + Torture = 5" trope. That Chain of Command Part II episode is one of the best of the season, possibly of the series. And a hell of a lead into the start of a new spin off, Deep Space 9.

Delusional thinking is a serious problem in our society and shouldn't be dismissed as simply being some minority fringe opinion.
These people can be mobilized to assault and tear down a liberal democracy. Misinformation campaigns have made them into the unwitting foot soldiers of a new culture war.

Is this post satire?

I've met top tech leaders over the decades. Hand shakes with Vinod Khosla, had a whiskey with Marc Andreessen, breakfast with Greg Raleigh, etc.
In then end, I turned hundreds of dollars of my parent's "it's time for you to move out" money into thousands-ish.
But I will be the first to admit that I shouldn't be in charge of the nation's tech

Or the art of shitting the bed?

This is why letting politicans decide details of trade and economics is such a bad idea. We put a man in charge that does not realize he is not competent in every sphere and mainly appoints Yesmen and toadies as advisors.

We are part of the generation that will experience the greatest fall in a century. It will make the retraction and fall of the British Empire seem like child's play.

Sounds good. But without a solution to the remote job scams done by organized crime, we're going to go ahead with in person interviews.

We're still going to put them in cars, planes, and kill-bots. AI doesn't have to actually be intelligent, selling something that can only simulate for a while before malfunctioning is sufficient to secure investment.

Jellyfish were here first, humans are the actual invasive species.

I'm not convinced he is capable of recognizing that anyone but himself has a problem that needs solving.

Starting off with $413 million of inheritance is surely a good start to amassing a fortune. I'm guessing you don't even have to be a terribly savvy businessman to grow that kind of initial wealth.

It's too late. We can roll out solar and wind faster than nuclear power. We'll of course multiple sources of energy, I don't see why we would restrict ourselves to only use nuclear.

Yes and no. There is improved reliability in a large grid because you have multiple generation sites connected to it. The grid itself becomes a massively complex system the larger it gets, especially with conventional AC transmission technology.

Yea, railroads have stop between them too and are connected in complex way. I don't think you need a single intertie from coast to coast. And if you read more carefully you'll see I suggested no such thing.

I'm sure it doesn't make any sense to you. Not everyone is going to test a tool they don't understand while in production. Pretty normal really.

The rest of your post is a repeat of your previous. I don't think I need to address it.

By dabble. I mean that many software engineers are trying out AI tech in their development. Perhaps in a personal project, perhaps in an experiment. But generally not using AI in their "main" work.

To pivot meaning, to swap the role of AI from being an experimental tool to being a tool that is part of your primary development process.

Results matter. If something is over hyped, then presumably it fails to live up to the promises. And in this case, I think it may not even live up to being a superior tool to what we currently use. Wasting more time and money than it saves.

New programming languages are easy. Especially if you just jump from one imperative language to another. Especially if you go to an object oriented language that uses a similar model the one you already know.

Maintaining is always the rub with these things. And it really does not matter what sort of tool we're talking about. If you cannot reproduce your results then it becomes difficult to do analysis or even basic debugging. Be it a toolchain for a language that you didn't "commit" to fully, or your cloud based LLM that you used to develop your test cases. If you used AI and need to come back a year later to add one more thing, you might as well start over from scratch with your prompts.

I don't think that's true at all.

Tech jobs generally require you to stay on top of the latest technology. You're constantly retraining yourself to use new tools, languages, techniques, buzzwords, and now AI assisted development and testing.

If you ever fall behind, it's really hard to get back into the game. If you have a few years of experience under your belt (so not a student) pivoting to leadership and management roles is possible for some. For most people, they drop out and find a different industry and take a massive haircut in the process.

Many of us are still taking a wait-and-see approach with AI. We are dabbling a bit in it but aren't committed to pivoting to it. Because we're not sure if it is an over hyped tech fad as part of a new bubble. Or if we're facing a major paradigm shift as big as broadband Internet or the microchip.