I don't really think that's true, because, again, idk why people here think this is all a bad take. It's real simple. For decades, corporations and institutions have had the upper hand. They have vast resources to spend on computational power and enterprise software and algorithms to keep things asymmetrically efficient. Algorithms don't sleep, don't get tired, they follow one creed ABO, Always Be Optimizing. But that software costs a lot of money, and you have to know all this other stuff to know how to use it correctly. Then along comes the language model. Suddenly, you just talk to the computer the way you'd talk to another human, and you get what you ask for.
Is it, though? Consider that many organizations both private and public have been using algorithms since the 1990s, long before anyone knew what an algorithm was. They had entire departments dedicated to running optimization algorithms. Amazon has algorithms deciding what products to show you, what prices to charge, and how to route packages. Airlines have algorithms that adjust ticket prices hundreds of times a day based on data you didn't even know existed, and health insurance companies have actuarial models that process millions of data points to decide your rates. And what have you got? A web browser with multiple tabs open, a spreadsheet program, and Google Search. Seems like a rather one-sided fight, no?
What's funny is this guy has 25 years of experience as a software developer. But three months was all it took to make it worthless. He also said it was harder than if he'd just wrote the code himself. Claude would make a mistake, he would correct it. Claude would make the same mistake again, having learned nothing, and he'd fix it again. Constant firefighting, he called it.
It's an example of a far older phenomenon: Once you automate something, the corresponding skill set and experience atrophy. It's a problem that predates LLMs by quite a bit. If the only experience gained is with the automated system, the skills are never acquired. I'll have to find it but there's a story about a modern fighter jet pilot not being able to handle a WWII era Lancaster bomber. They don't know how to do the stuff that modern warplanes do automatically.
What's interesting is what he found out. From the article:
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
I don't know if you know this, but if the US falls, the whole world falls with it. There will be no turning back, no one will be spared. Who knows, maybe evolution will start over with another species, and they'll do the same shit, over and over again until the sun burns out.
Because it comes down to the Presidential pardon powers. They can defy a blatantly illegal order, be dishonorably discharged, lose their pensions, healthcare benefits, pay, etc. or, they can follow a blatantly illegal order, and receive a pardon for it later.
This. I don't think Miller knows just how much his own side doesn't like him. He does have people over him with more power who keep him around because he's useful, and they protect him because he's useful, but once he's outlived his usefulness, they'll wash their hands of him.
But now, I wonder if supersonic flight could work today. We know a lot more now than we did when the first Concordes were built. There have been numerous advances in the fields of engineering, materials science, avionics, and such since the last Concorde jet was grounded.
True, but they had been riding a wave of Pan-Germanism prior to the Nazis. Germany had many diverse regions that didn't see each other as equals prior to the Weimar Republic.
But could Germany have ever turned back from fascism on its own, without any help whatsoever? Let's say the entire continent just let the Nazis have their way and let Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss play out their experimental new form of government out to its horrible logical conclusion. Could Germany ever come back from that? Could the world?
No, we're about as far from OK as a country can get. The world needs to unite against us and muster the largest liberation force ever seen. And I mean the entire world literally every nation that can send warriors, send them. Germans, you have been where we are. You know, all too well, where this road leads. You could not turn yourselves back from it, and so you needed the help of 4 allied world powers. Now, one of those world powers is trudging down that same road you walked almost a century ago. And, I don't think we will be able to turn ourselves back, just as you could not.
Evil sustains. Not sure why and science has yet to yield answers. One of the Rothschilds would get continued organ transplants to sustain his life, often from organ donors who did not know they were organ donors, usually from third-world countries.
Initially, wasn't Occupy a protest about the post-recession bank bailouts? Then the production team for Good Morning America put a self-proclaimed representative of Occupy, a "female-presenting person" named Ketchup, in the studio to ask them questions about it, and they had no media coaching whatsoever.
Carl Schmitt literally wrote the book on fascism as an ideology. Hell, he was even in the Nazi Party, sort of like the Curtis Yarvin of his time. Which is interesting because Yarvin kind of idolizes Schmitt and quotes him frequently. Being in the Nazi Party didn't last very long, though, as he was forewarned that soon he was to be ousted from his role in the Party, as the regime no longer had need of philosophers, and he was also concerned that he would be outed as a Hegelian.
I don't really think that's true, because, again, idk why people here think this is all a bad take. It's real simple. For decades, corporations and institutions have had the upper hand. They have vast resources to spend on computational power and enterprise software and algorithms to keep things asymmetrically efficient. Algorithms don't sleep, don't get tired, they follow one creed ABO, Always Be Optimizing. But that software costs a lot of money, and you have to know all this other stuff to know how to use it correctly. Then along comes the language model. Suddenly, you just talk to the computer the way you'd talk to another human, and you get what you ask for.