That’s why I said it’s more expensive, but large companies can make it up in volume. The extra expense only makes sense if you can take advantage of the E.G. increased transport capacity provided.

Isn't this functionally the same thing? What happens to smaller companies in this hypothetical? Are you not assuming that they get pushed out of the market shortly thereafter?

You’re assuming that LLMs can ever be made accurate. I think you might be able to make them somewhat more accurate, but you’ll never be able to trust their output implicitly.

I am assuming this. I am assuming that we're at the bottom of this technology's sigmoid curve, there is going to be a ton of growth in a relatively short amount of time. I guess we'll have to wait to see which one of us has a better prediction.

As a programmer I am absolutely not worried in the slightest that LLMs are coming for my job. I’ve seen LLM produced programs, they’re an absolute trash fire, most of them won’t even compile let alone produce correct output. LLMs might be coming for really really bad programmers jobs, but anyone with even a shred of talent has nothing to worry about.

You have described the state of LLMs right now. Programming languages seem like a perfect fit for a LLM; they're extremely structured and meticulously (well, mostly) defined. The concepts and algorithms used not overly complex for a LLM. There doesn't need to be much in the way of novel creativity create solutions for standard use cases. The biggest difficulty I've seen is just getting the prompting clear enough. I think a majority of the software engineering field is on the chopping block, just like the "art for hire" crowd. People pushing the limits of the fields will be safe but that's a catch 22, isn't it? If low-level entry is impossible, how does one get to be a high-level professional?

And even if we take your [implied] stance that this is the top of the S-curve and LLMs aren't going to get much better-- it will still be a useful tool for human programmers to increase productivity and reduce available jobs.

This feels like wishful thinking. Any automated system (cars, LLMs, etc) only need to be better than a human doing that job. Your example, for, um, example, ignores that self-driving trucks don't need to take sleep breaks, or bathroom breaks, or spend time with their families, etc.

Using the assumption that this is the bottom of the curve for this LLM technology and that we still have a lot of expansion in the tech coming in a relatively short amount of time, then I would guess that any job that makes art that is "work for hire" will cease to exist, and I imagine programming is going to take a pretty big hit in available jobs. I don't think you'll be able to get rid of human programmers altogether, but you'll need way fewer of them.

While I understand the urge to come to this conclusion, it's a simpler hypothesis that they just like the policies these people have pushed for, so much so that they disregard all the negatives that seem to be connected to Republican control (lower life expectancy, ineffective government programs[^1], lower standard of living, etc. You might call it "brainwashing" but that term in this context is too vague; they could claim we are also brainwashed with the same amount of accuracy.

Also, while it isn't your point, this would be a reason they keep getting voted in-- not a reason they run unopposed.

[1] This may be seen as a good thing, for some of them.

Because people keep voting for them, or they simply run unopposed.

It's to be expected for Christians (et al); a vast majority have been taught at a young age that the perfect society is one where a benevolent god makes all the decisions and you just shut up and do as you're told. It was never The People's Republic of Heaven; it's the Kingdom of Heaven.

You wouldn't happen to be a white, cis, male, would you? I ask because you seem to have a somewhat abstract concept of what politics is.

I do not mean to be dense but I don't follow how your comment applies to mine.

Trademark infringement, as opposed to copyright infringement, is all about customer confusion. If my vacuum repair shop is called 𝕏, then it's not likely to cause customer confusion if a sandwich shop opens up and brands themselves as 𝕏.

This may be why there are so many different X trademarks, and why none of them "went after" each other.

If I remember correctly, Meta's does pertain to social media, but as far as I know they're not using it, so it might get messy there.

Also, in case it's not clear. The 𝕏 is just a normal unicode character. Dude couldn't even be bothered to pay someone to make a logo for him.

Abolishing slavery, ending Jim Crow, giving women the vote, becoming one of the first dozen countries on the planet to legalize gay marriage, helping win WW2, helping support Ukraine, donating more to foreign aid than any other country on the planet, the Marshall Plan, everything about NASA, best national parks on the planet, entertainment capital of the world, first country to land a man on the moon, the whole "nation of immigrants" things making us one of the most diverse countries on the planet.

• Slavery isn't abolished; it can still, per the constitution, be used as punishment.
• Jim Crow may be ended, but the racism that enables it has always been alive and well
• Gave women the right to vote way later than it should have
• Same as above
• Only after being directly attacked
• Only because we spend so obscenely much on war. A billionaire that gives $1000 is not as generous as someone making min-wage that give $10.
• Self-serving imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Modern_criticism
• like defunding it to where we have to privatize space flight now? Elon Musk approves!
• I... guess? Arguably has nothing to do with being an American. Lots of countries were throwing money at this-- we just randomly got there first.
• We're openly and emphatically racist, as a country. We simultaneously reject immigration while requiring immigrants to be used as borderline slave labor to ensure our produce doesn't get too expensive.

We've never been the shining city on the hill, but we sure want to pretend we are.

It's conceivable that one would be proud of their country for the actions their country takes, both domestic and/or world stage. Like I'm sure the people living in those Scandinavian where a vast majority of their country is healthy, happy, and even their criminals are treated with dignity and respect can be proud of how their country has turned out.

I don't think it's a common interpretation to feel self-directed pride due to one's country. Unless, maybe, you're the president or someone who makes actual decisions for the country.

It's mostly true, but not entirely. The data "on the internet" has to live somewhere. For instance, when you DM someone on a social media network-- would you consider that private? I assure you the content of those messages can be read by the website's admin-users.

If you're hosting your own non-social web service (like, personal cloud storage or something), then that is arguably private for you, but if you let someone else also use it, then it is not private for them, because you can almost certainly see their file content, having access to the server directly.

Encryption can throw all of this off; a service like Signal is private-- the admin-users of Signal can't see your messages. Generally speaking any service that warns you that all your data will be lost if you forget your password is probably private. If they can recover your data, they have access to your data.

Edit: Better word choices.

I kind of get what you're saying, but what you might be missing is that we are long past the point where politics is just a disagreement on how to achieve the same general goal. The mainstream GOP is full on pro-bigotry, anti-freedom, and if not openly fascist, they sure do seem to do a lot of fascist-like things. This is not hyperbole.

Additionally, money is (and always has been) the lever to obtain power, so knowingly giving money (directly or indirectly) to a person who will use that money to promote or assist these kind of beliefs becomes a moral question, not a financial one. You may not want to believe it is so, but it is so.