> We also limit access to sugary foods and other things that can be damaging in excess.
Maybe you do, but not everybody does. 19.7% of American kids are obese. The hypocrisy is that tech executives promote and lobby for excessive use of their products (even manufacturing addiction), but know better for their kids.
Bingo! I think in 50 years time, we will laugh at advertisements and fake addiction research these companies are funding the same way we are now laughing at how bizarre the tobacco propaganda once was
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
Is that irony or plain naiveness? historically and technically, conquest of space is inseparable from warfare. As for climate change, one can argue that technology is one of the primary driver: aviation alone is estimated to 4% of global temperature rise.
Energy use is the driver. Fossil fuels happen to be cheap. It's effectively a coincidence, nothing inherent to technological progress itself except insofar as something like aviation would never have been a commercial success without an exceedingly cheap, dense, and portable method of energy storage. Solar-syngas and solar-battery would have eventually gotten there but we'd all have been taking trains and ships for the past 80 years while riding electrified public transit.
Not really. Most tech doesn't use much energy at all. It's not uncommon for advances to reduce energy usage.
Granted that as something becomes cheaper and easier we tend to scale it up but that's not really a tech thing it's more like a natural force that applies in equal measure to literally everything. It goes beyond humans; all living organisms will exploit available resources to the extent possible provided that doing so increases fitness.
That's an issue I have with Claude actually. I found it very good at breaking abstractions to get the job done. This is what I'd call slope (more so than the class internals).
Yes, it really depends on how much work the agent did produce. It could be as little as doing a renaming or a refactoring, or execute direct orders that require no creativity or problem solving. In which case the agent shouldn't be credited more than the linter or the IDE.
I've been in that situation. What broke was that nobody had the skills to coordinate and to ramp up all these new joiners. And the hiring didn't anticipate that this would be a problem.
Eventually, things went better when they found the right persons to help with the organization, but it was chaotic and frustrating for a while.
Happens all the time. I usually propose a details structure myself (e.g. do it in three phases, add 3 functions + an orchestrator, make sure structure is valid before writing the function bodies), or iterate on detailed plan before implementing code.
Now some people argue that terrible code is fine nowadays, because humans won't read it anymore...
My manager is slowly being replaced by an AI. She's been asked to increase number of reports and start working on unrelated tasks, because presumably AI is making more productive at supporting the team.
This resonates. Recently, I've started to consider Claude as a partner. I like how he's willing to accept he's wrong when you provide evidence. It can be more pleasant than working with humans.
Please don't anthropomorphize LLMs even further by assigning them gendered pronouns. LLMs are always "it"s. They're not alive, they're just really complicated linear algebra expressions. Prematurely anthropomorphizing them, even subtly like this, will come back to bite us if we keep doing it.
Why not? Claude is a male name, and the model behaves close enough to a human that I think it's fine to refer to it as a he or a she. Also note that some languages don't have neutral pronouns and it's perfectly fine to say a mosquito is a "he", and a spider a "she" for instance. Are they more humans than a LLM?
Maybe you do, but not everybody does. 19.7% of American kids are obese. The hypocrisy is that tech executives promote and lobby for excessive use of their products (even manufacturing addiction), but know better for their kids.
reply