It sounds like you're saying no. I disagree. If I were wearing a wig made of human hair, my hair is still fake, even if my fake hair is made of real hair.
So we have to account for multiple possibilities - the robot could be wearing a real fake mustache, a fake fake mustache, or perhaps one day we'll see them extrude their own.
I predict it could cost as much as $150 Billion!
Do I hear $200B? We're making shit up - go large!
I will not use them, but that's because of a quirk of our legal system that leaves customers exposed when they aren't with a cashier.
People have been arrested after the fact over self-checkout mistakes that never would have happened had there been a human cashier. The reason is that the cashier signals acceptance of the deal, takes the money, and concludes the transaction. If they make a scanning mistake, or the price is wrong, or the barcode was wrong, or whatever, that's on the store - they accepted payment and concluded the transaction. If you use their robot scanner, you are representing to the machine what you claim to be purchasing, and LP can later review cameras and call the cops if they disagree.
Florida, which apparently is more enthusiastic about self-checkout than elsewhere, has defense lawyers advertising in this lane. I'll deal with humans and nope out on that whole game, thanks.
My day job is a (saas) app that's about 20 years old and has been worked on continuously by a team that has varied in size from about 5 to now about 15. It is complicated and connects to several external services. There are parts of the app that are too hairy for AI to reason about. But we have found, recently, that AI is surprisingly good at explaining how some rather complicated (but well written) parts of the app work.
The 2-3 really hairy parts of the app are written in an arbitrarily complicated way that I would never have used and long to rewrite - but they work. Nobody on the team is happy with it - and there is no corporate memory of anyone being happy working with these parts.
We have exceptional test coverage (>95% by lines), so it's just a matter of time before we decide to lay out an AI agent team to rewrite some of the horrible stuff in a way that is much more palatable to both human and agent. This is not something I would have suggested as possible 4-6 months ago.
But how do you plan to maintain this software? That's the real effort of software engineering.
I'm not sure how to answer that question. My flip answer is "the usual way." But nothing about software is the usual anymore.
100% of the code that
At this point it is a very light project - somewhat less that 10K lines of code. It is in its minimal viable product phase - and I imagine it will grow to be more than 15 or even 20K LOC. Eventually becoming projects on 3 distinct platforms and becoming substantially larger.
All of which is ridiculous. Fewer than 200 prompts so far, I'm sure. Maybe fewer than 100.
I'm talking about the many folks who have reason kicking them when they're down, right now.
I also imagine there are a lot of well-rested folks, both Russian and not, who know of an opportunity to make it worse.
I've got a black swan for ya!
I just shipped software that AI wrote [practically] entirely that I would not have shipped otherwise. I don't think I'm the only one.
They like to throw out random statistics as totems to appear somewhat tethered to reality, which betrays some remaining awareness of how far gone they are. But they're decorative facts, little different from land acknowledgements or prefatory "I'm not a racist, but..." noises, for similar purposes.
But in general, they no longer treat people as humans, with their own complicated inner lives and desires and confusions and insecurities. No, everyone is locked in to little set-piece lives governed by their looks and genes, performing deterministic dramas that just happen to highlight the incels' own insecurities. A weird, pathetic self-induced solipsism in which being miserable is more comfortable than confronting their own egos and accepting that dealing with insecurity is just part of the human condition.
It is pointless to suggest this, but I will anyway: the fix is to actually talk to humans like you're one, too. Don't run some game you think you're supposed to play, don't put on a mask, don't puff up. Have a conversation, learn how they're different, what they care about, what makes them tick. If you don't treat (at least all) your interpersonal relations as conflicts to either win or lose, you might find you actually... enjoy their company, and they might find they enjoy yours.
Pfft. Morons. It is *super easy* to make predictions.
Accurate ones, however...
Sam Altman is a grifter himself and knew how to play this.
And now that we know communism is actually defined as anti-bigotry and has nothing to do with the means of production, I guess it is not communist to take ownership in Intel.
But Satya won't pucker up for Piggie. And so Microsoft gets to be the face of an attempt to gin up anti-Indian bigotry before the midterms.
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Doing it right is asking whether you want it installed, not forcing it on you.
Yes, because users understand those kinds of choices.
Were you in a frat at Cornell or what?
Too soon!
So Republicans join the Democrats. Local media calls these people "moderates" - no, it doesn't make much sense, just the accepted code word. Most of the current batch are funded by more or less reactionary tech billionaires. (The older set are less, the newer ones more.)
So yeah. You have to read past the label. Democrats here are such a big tent that we let Republicans run things a lot of the time if they wear a fake mustache and mumble something vaguely progressive-sounding now and then. But they do whatever's good for AirBNB and Salesforce when they're not servicing commercial real estate.
The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.
