I was anticipating that having AI write code to pass tests (human and/or AI written tests) would be worthwhile, but in practice, I've found that even models such as Opus 4.6 Thinking, High Effort simply "cheats", or rather, fails to generalize much too often. It's occurred to me that perhaps I need some amount of randomness in the tests to keep the models honest, but it feels wrong. We'll see.
It's a reasonably cheap and unlocked handheld with fecent battery life. Personally I'd want more pixels, but if it works it works. It seems to be the default choice for remote control these days.
Isn't a rather good deal of color from feathers a result of "structural color", rather than pigmentation? I'd be curious if fossilized feathers could ever, in theory, preserve enough microscopic detail to guess at that.
Maybe it's just me, but this "We have to fudge the truth because nuance would support the alt-right" business just seems to drive a bigger wedge into the political divide than would just being reasonable. Folks closer to center see it as controlling the narrative, lies, and conspiracy when the full truth comes out. I'd prefer not driving more people into the fringes.
They didn't fudge the truth. They reported exactly what the scientifically-supportable findings at the time were. Even if they had a notion that they were only looking at underpainting that was covered by more intricate work, they couldn't prove it. And, at the point, when they were trying to draw a distinction between objective fact and subjective sentiment, it was paramount that they come down solidly on the side of objective fact. Which they did. They proved that there was originally a weathered-away chroma layer above the base marble on these statues.
>Folks closer to center see it as controlling the narrative, lies, and conspiracy when the full truth comes out.
And this, I reject. The people who think this way aren't in the center, and they were never interested in the truth. Their aim has always been promoting the primacy of Western classical art (often as part of larger notions of white supremacy). They fought hard for the debunked no-chroma interpretation until another angle presented itself: that the chroma scientists were trying to purposely make the statues seem ugly, in order to devalue Western classical art, or to dictate its value outside of their control and terms. It's the same tack as right-wing gamers claiming that female characters are being made purposely "ugly" in order to alienate male heterosexual gamers.
And while the reason for changes in female representation in games are less objective and more complicated than the scientific inquiry that produced the knowledge of painted statues, most of the people driven to the fringes by the evolution of these topics, as knowledge and circumstances develop, are people who share their fringe (and incorrect) ideas. Implicit there is that there's no "full truth coming out", just a developing collective understanding.
If you want narrative control, lies, and conspiracy, look at Wall Street.
Following similar thinking, there's no world in which AI becomes exactly capable of replacing all software developers and then stops there, miraculously saving the jobs of everyone else next to and above them in the corporate hierarchy. There may be a human, C-suite driven cost-cutting effort to pause progress there for some brief time, but if AI can do all dev work, there's no reason it can't do all office work to replace every human in front of a keyboard. Either we're all similarly affected, or else AI still isn't good enough, in which case fleets of programmers are still needed, and among those, the presumed "helpfulness" of AI will vary wildly. Not unlike what we see already.
> if AI can do all dev work, there's no reason it can't do all office work to replace every human in front of a keyboard
There are plenty of reasons.
Radiologists aren’t being replaced by AI because of liability. Same for e.g. civil engineers. Coders don’t have liability for shipping shit code. That makes switching to an AI that’s equally blameless easier.
Also, data: the web is first and foremost a lot of code. AI is getting good at coding first for good reason.
Finally, as OP says, the hard work in engineering is actually scoping requirements and then executing and iterating on that. Some of that is technical know-how. A lot is also political and social skills. Again, customers are okay with a vibe-coded website in a way most people are not with even support chatbots.
That's actually a terrific example, because the company already had a working, field-tested manually controlled version of their product, but they wanted a computer-controlled version to relieve radiologists of all of the drudgery and opportunities for error in the manual setup. So the design spec was to "faithfully replicate the manual setup procedures in a microcontroller," which was achieved. The problem was that the UI was utter dogshit, the training materials were poor (you can't have Marketing say "hey this computer handles all the details for you!" and then expect customers to pore page-by-page through the reference manual), and most clinics weren't really enforcing or QAing the operator training anyway. And since "the computer has a handle on it," the radiologists and senior techs who were supposed to be second-checking everything basically abdicated that responsibility, driven in part I'm sure by management that expected them to now have more "free hours" for other activities that Make Line Go Up. And nobody really raised a flag that this seemed troubling until multiple children died, and at the end of the day a lot of people could say "well, it wasn't my fault, I did what I was told to do" and sort of believe it.
If anyone doesn't think all of that is going to happen again on a massive scale as companies embrace GenAI, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. AI will change a lot of things, but it won't fix human nature.
For the record, having suffered the effects of extreme dehydration before, if someone insists on aiding me in the process of dying (against my wishes) please get it over with quickly. End it with the morphine right off. Dehydration is a miserable process; the immediate misery of thirst aside, the delirium, paranoia, and irritability are not the least bit merciful to inflict on someone, in my personal experience.
If that's in line with the patient's wishes, cool. Otherwise, not so cool, both for the act of killing someone and for undermining the arguments in favor of legal euthanasia.
Everywhere, license agreements that can be changed by the company at any time, pretty much for every game developer that can afford a lawyer to write up said license agreement. They could all start doing shady stuff at any time. Might still leave thousands of games, but they add up to a drop in the bucket of the overall market.
We can barely afford 5 dimensions with our current operating budget, and it's just not going to scale, I'm afraid. Saddle up boys, I'm proposing we draw them on a _hyperbolic plane_. Two dimensions, fits on a coffee table, room for as many parallel lines as we'll ever need. Hell, some of them can be ultraparallel. Plus, we can deploy it on AWS non-End User Computing for Logical Infrastructure Deployment.
