dag100

6 ms·

61.
by dag100 5mo ago
And management asked nobody, and then did it anyway. Your preferences are unusual. Most people either don't care or prefer flashiness over consistency. It's something I've come to realise about the why the world is the way it
62.
by dag100 5mo ago
> But if nobody has money to buy things then there is no point in producing anything. The top 1% can still buy things. They can buy a lot of things, in fact. In 2024 in the US, the top 20% by income account consumed roughly the same amou
63.
by dag100 5mo ago
Your argument is effectively saying "how can lowering the quality of my product affect customers when they freely use it?". If you use Facebook regularly, you are locked into it because unless you manage to convince your entire fr
64.
by dag100 5mo ago
I think the more pressing issue is that there isn't really much space left for humans in the economy if thinking can also be automated.
65.
by dag100 5mo ago
Why stop there? Why not let AI take over all functions, Whispering Earring ( https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yva... for anyone who hasn't read it) style?
66.
by dag100 5mo ago
I don't think the level of investment in an idea is equivalent to how impressive it may be. Most of the investment in AI is based on the idea that it will make professions and human labour obsolete, which means whoever has the reins at
67.
by dag100 5mo ago
But operating systems are not distros. Less laconically, distros generally refer to the userland parts of the operating systems rather than the actual kernel. FreeBSD does not use the Linux kernel so calling it a distro, which typically ref
68.
by dag100 5mo ago
Calling FreeBSD "just a distro" is verging on insulting. It's an operating system.
69.
by dag100 6mo ago
Chess exists solely for the sake of the humans playing it. Even if machines solved chess, people would rather play chess against a person than a machine because it is a social activity in a way. It's like playing tennis versus a person
70.
by dag100 6mo ago
Seeing as how austerity governments campaigned on reducing social benefits and achieved considerable success over the past few decades, I don't see how your solution consisting of granting people even more social benefits will ever hap
71.
by dag100 7mo ago
This is basically a violation of the robustness principle ("be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you produce"), but I doubt there will be much improvement on this front seeing as tokens are fed back into the mode
72.
by dag100 7mo ago
They probably don't care enough to notice the tells. I think that it's generally those ambivalent, skeptical or opposed to AI who notice, while those who wholeheartedly support AI see no reason to differentiate between it and huma
73.
by dag100 7mo ago
I think there was a major jump in AI capabilities from Anthropic and OpenAI between the end of 2025 and the start of 2026 that made them far more reliable at programming correctly. I wonder what changed in the secret sauce.
74.
by dag100 7mo ago
1. Whether it is debt or not makes no difference so long as someone else will take it . You imply that Apple having cash means customers owe Apple something. I say that Apple having cash just means Apple could have something else in th
75.
by dag100 7mo ago
What I'm trying to say is that I don't see any benefit in describing cash as "debt" and instead find it misleading as it implies an obligation to be fulfilled that doesn't actually exist for anyone except the govern
76.
by dag100 7mo ago
I would argue that most people already understand money in the way you describe it: as a medium of exchange. Your description of money just frames this function through the idea of an obligation of some sort which doesn't exist actuall
77.
by dag100 7mo ago
You haven't responded to my second statement: > And, as soon as they spend the cash, somehow their sales have retroactively gone from being donations to fair transactions. Allowing the future to affect the past is clearly absurd. Ac
78.
by dag100 7mo ago
I feel like this makes very little sense, because a purchase is a trade - one resource (currency) for another (the product/service). If the product has no value, there is no reason to engage in the trade. This can only exist for the pu
79.
by dag100 7mo ago
By your measure, any company, in fact any entity, that isn't in the red is giving away something for "free". If Apple had made their products cheaper so that they just broke even, according to you, they would not have given a
80.
by dag100 7mo ago
"increased" implies that people bought brand-new Mac Minis to run ClawdBot on, got bored of it, and then sold them back to be refurbished and resold.