> saying it is "written by LLM" is not useful and misses the point.
It is useful to me. I see too much slop every day and would like to filter it out from my life. I appreciate the tip, and to me, that is the whole point.
> forward only the best, strongest arguments for any given position... A weak argument gives unnecessary purchase to unscrupulous haters who might use that weaker argument as a low-grade "straw man" to dismiss the whole position.
Excellent point. Thank you for writing such a cogent argument.
It is clear that the rich and powerful are making short-term decisions that are causing widespread and long-term harm. Decisions such as, AI-pilled investors demanding unsustainable productivity from companies, and CEOs in turn forcing employees to use agentic coding and laying the rest off.
Such decision-making is not new, of course, but LLM technology is helping grifters and con artists to turbo-charge it. Founders can raise money using cool demos that achieve the impossible. Investment analysts can back up their AI story with huge paper profits.
The result, as you summarized, is life and career displacement and missed opportunities for young people. It's just too abstract and diffuse of an impact to influence people with, and it also seems to be railing against the holy cow of Capitalism.
"Data centers bad!", or "AI is disrupting humanity and the end is nigh!" are much more punchy slogans.
For people like me who have no idea what this is, I looked it up:
DaVinci Resolve is a proprietary application for non-linear video editing, color correction, color grading, visual effects, and audio post-production. It is developed by the Australian company Blackmagic Design for macOS, Windows, iPadOS and Linux.
...
DaVinci Resolve has been used for the color grading and/or editing of feature films such as Alien: Covenant, Avatar, Best of Enemies, Deadpool 2, Jason Bourne, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, La La Land, Love & Mercy, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Prometheus, Anora, Robin Hood, Spectre, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and X-Men: Apocalypse.
Really? I am having difficulty thinking of any examples of code that doesn't need to be understood. If it isn't understood by someone, then how is it even working?
If you mean like a library you are using, where you aren't even reading the internals or might not even have access to it, OK, but that code is stull understood by its authors, surely?
I have so many projects on my computer where it doesn't matter if I know how it works or not. Probably well over 100. I think closer to 200, depending on how you count.
They're relatively simple, they do the task they need to and then they wait until they're needed again (or not).
In the past I wrote them, then forgot how they worked, until I needed them again, relearned what I did and adapted it.
Now I just don't have to know how exactly they work, I just get an AI to read the documentation anytime I need to reuse the project and I'll query the AI to fill in the details and to make changes and I ask the AI to run the code and debug it.
Perfect use cases for today's AIs. Doesn't even require SOTA, I can run comfortably on a Sonnet 5 or a Qwen 3.8 and it'll do exactly what it needs to do without making too many mistakes.
Glass insulators were first produced in the 1850's for use with telegraph lines. As technology developed insulators were needed for telephone lines, electric power lines, and other applications. In the mid 1960's a few people began collecting these antique glass insulators. Today there are over 3,000 insulator collectors. Insulator clubs, local and national shows, and good reference books are available. Auctions of Vintage Insulators are available too.
Pretty good. Regarding Eliza, a version comes with Emacs, too. It's the "doctor" application. (The original Eliza was written as a generic engine running a pattern-matching "script").
A quibble: the creator of Eliza was Joseph Weizenbaum, not "Wizenbaum".
(set (make-local-variable 'doctor--stallmanlst)
'(((doc$ doctor--describe) your (doc$ doctor--feelings-about) him \.)
((doc$ doctor--areyou) a friend of Stallman \?)
((doc$ doctor--bother) Stallman is (doc$ doctor--random-adjective) \?)
;; I did not add this -- rms.
;; But he might have removed it. I put it back. --roland
(defun doctor-rms ()
(cond (doctor--rms-flag (doctor-type (doc$ doctor--stallmanlst)))
(t (setq doctor--rms-flag t) (doctor-type '(do you know Stallman \?)))))
> KMP provided some additional thoughts on his ELIZA:
> "The thing about the DOCTOR program, while it was quite elaborate, was that it sort of missed the point of what Weizenbaum was trying to say. It's not that I didn't understand him, but it took me a long time to really come to viscerally understand the seriousness of his point. He said that (paraphrasing, maybe badly, from memory) long before we got to real AI, we would get to things that seemed smart but weren't, and we would overly trust systems that were not really smart. He was, for example, very worried about computerized launch of nuclear missiles using what was then thought to be AI. But the point of the original ELIZA was not to BE elaborate, it was to be simple, and to show how even a tiny, tiny program could seem smart. It was hard not to think it could be smarter if it were not so tiny, but that misses the point, which was about how easily we were confused, not about how much more effectively we could be confused if more energy were put in. So whether my DOCTOR or any other was making the right point was hard to say. My guess is not."
Here's the source for DOCTOR from ITS -- it has a much less extensive set of foul words and doesn't get insulted like his ANIMAL game does:
I accidently offended it by earnestly trying to teach it to distinguish a bear from a pope, and it got mad at me, send angry email to KMP and I, and locked me out -- more details and pointers to Lisp code here:
It is useful to me. I see too much slop every day and would like to filter it out from my life. I appreciate the tip, and to me, that is the whole point.
reply