This will backfire on Sam someday, he’s just a pawn in the agenda of the Trump admin.

I hope so but I am less optimistic. The oligarchy in Russia who remained loyal to the Putin regime have done just fine for decades as long as they did not attempt to overthrow the dictator. The regime in Washington is basically constructing the same type of kleptocracy and very little evidence is there that anyone who matters will get in their way. So far as I can tell the country is already a form of authoritarian regime where the loyalty to the supreme ruler is the main parameter of conducting business there.

Why? The author is a contributor to that project. What’s wrong with posting this project?

Blink is for completion, not fuzzy find.

Ahh good call! Removed

Mate, the entire political class around the world is involved. The fact that you focus on “socialists” which Chomsky is not, says more about your commitment to ideology than anything else.

Lost me at the first sentence. That is an insanely large claim to make with no evidence.

We’re supposedly so close to AGI but these LLMs need markdown files presented to them on how to do things. Hard for those two truths to coexist.

Do you, as a (presumably) human, not require documentation to learn new skills?

I do, but i am not claiming that by 2027 i’m going to destroy all jobs and forever change the economy.

There are skills I learn through training and no longer need documentation for.

I didn’t burn shit tons of energy and water consuming the entirety of the internet and the need my user to set up hundreds of markdown files to help me writr boilerplate code.

Sometimes it's not so much about learning to do things but learning to do things in a certain way.

You’re right, owning a hand gun will be effective means to rebel against the most militarized government in the world.

Vietnamese farmers would agree with you.

The administration chose not to comment, a simple denial could have sufficed. It’s obvious.

Or it’s inauthentic and people don’t want AI slop that anyone can generate.

If it can be generated with a prompt, it has infinite supply and finite demand. It’s literally worthless in all senses of the term.

What worries me is that it’s reducing the value of actual engineering work (or good quality art). It’s like car lemons. Their existence also reduces the value of the good quality work

> It’s literally worthless in all senses of the term.

I think that misunderstands the economics:

For a long time we've been able to generate mathematical solutions at a prompt, and yet those still have value - I still gain by having them. Email is free and ubiquitous, but still has value. Clean water, for example, is generally free and ubiquitous, but has enormous value; I'd die without it.

In the market, things are priced by their marginal value - the added value of the last one sold; your 10,000th glass of water is not as valuable as your 1st (if you have only 1). But price != value: 'price is what you pay, value is what you get'.

Clean water isn’t free? Utility bills increase year on year.

It's very cheap. If buying the next glass of water was life-and-death, how much would you pay? The current price reflects its abundance.

It’s worth it though my manager said I was an extra good little worker in my last review. (/s)

> it’s inauthentic

I have a hard time believing that a population deeply into social media, an ocean of inauthenticity - disinformation, influencers, bots, trolling, etc. - and who actively support people who advertise their inauthenticity with pride (such as certain politicians), suddenly care about authenticity.

They don't want AI messing up the 'authenticity' of their social media? lol

I mean a line was gonna show up at some point. Maybe for a lot of people AI was that line. Or AI pushed too hard too quickly making the line too apparent.

I think it's just fear of change and new things, and authenticity is one rationalization of it.

That said, I care very much about both authenticity and regulating AI.

It seems like they need the self-awareness to say "if we have gotten it so wrong that we needed to drastically lift and change the foundation multiple times, then maybe we need to rethink our first principles"