That doesn't explain how Silicon valley powered, owned by the city of Santa Clara, can provide electricity at 18c/kwh while the next city over PG&E charges 48c/kwh
Has Santa Clara diversified their energy and Sunnyvale did not?
I am used to Python. Hard to switch to something else until I am forced to. I am trying to manage agentic coding at least to the point where I can identify bugs with my own eyes instead of purely believing the LLMs. I know I will cheat and let an LLM take over the entire Rust app if I tried.
I dunno, I have a closed-loop insulin pump / CGM and it pisses me off that the algorithm on which my health and life depend is not available for me to look at, understand and evaluate. Likewise there are all sorts of artificial limits on getting even read-only access to my data, such as blood glucose. It feels wildly disempowering to me.
I imagine I would feel similarly about a pacemaker. How does it work? What algorithm does it use to determine what to do at any given moment? Does it have settings? Are they optimally chosen? Are there bugs? Security flaws?
Law and code are only superficially similar as law always requires human interpretation plus law is an interface to reality. Code can stay contained in its nice, little, abstract box.
So every lawsuit dispute, divorce, traffic injury, etc… is a completely novel case that requires depths of creativity far beyond simple CRUD apps or solving 377 open math problems.
Yeah but unironically. Every situation is slightly different, so they need to be decided on their own terms.
If you don't have that, look at how many people bitch that Google or Paypal or whatever cut them off with no warning and no concern for the circumstances. Now imagine that, but like for your house or your kids.
Law is not clear, rational code. Law is human drama, in all its many, many forms.
I can tell you either not programmed or have not connected the dots. You won’t find a single CRUD app in existence that is the same. There are always and I mean always exceptions, edge cases, weird shit. It looks easy and similar on the outside and then you pop the hood.. if there even is a hood.
People like to pretend “CRUD” is this solved problem and I see it is, in theory, yet in practice CRUD hides a lot of bullshit that gets swept under the rug.
In a very interesting way the systems I worked on were always encodings of “centuries” of drama, psychology and politics. It just happens a lot faster on the software side.
Lawyers are cooked for sure. I don’t see any aspect of their work that is out of reach for language models. In fact they seem tailor made for it. They think their work is more complex or creative than complex software projects and mathematics, it’s laughable.
lol no, not even a little bit. If you think that, you don't understand what law actually is.
Law looks like rules, but it's not. It's centuries of codified human drama and fighting. It's mostly edge cases, because you really only fight when something goes wrong.
On top of that, lawyers are vehicles for liability. Can't give that to a chatbot lol
I studied it for a few years and have some legalese speaking friends. That of course doesn’t make me an expert but I have some inkling of what’s going on.
I don’t see the problem to be honest. Edge cases don’t bother the clankers. You think “programming”, all of it across all domains, plus the business side of things (which is a source of insanity itself), the pointy haired bosses, the ridiculous processes, the “UIs”, the complexity of a full system from top to bottom is rule-based and orderly?
Myopically looking at dev work makes it seem like this abstract wonderland but it’s seething, bristling whirlpools of psychology, neurodivergence and misaligned stakeholders all the way down.
Your point on liability is fair. I guess we can appoint liability crumple zones but I suspect they won’t rake in 200-300 an hour. Besides liability can very much be given to a “chatbot”. I don’t see how any legal entity can’t take it on. I agree that society is not ready for it, not at all, but I fail to see the fundamental blockers.
> Myopically looking at dev work makes it seem like this abstract wonderland but it’s seething, bristling whirlpools of psychology, neurodivergence and misaligned stakeholders all the way down.
All of that is testable if the incentives are there and AI incentivizes testing.
You can't wave away liability that easily lol, and no, you can't assign it to a chatbot.
Law is extremely unforgiving. In general, you get one shot at it, and if you lose, that's it. No do overs, and the consequences can be life-altering. That's why so many things in law are the way they are, and why it's illegal to practice law without a license.
Because the stakes are so high, lawyers are also vehicles for liability. If you ask one for advice and you lose because that advice was wrong, you can at least recoup damages from them.
In countries with modern laws and open records you seldom need a lawyer. I've dealt with many legal issues requiring preliminary decisions and the lawyers added absolutely nothing I didn't already know by simply reading the law.
Your post makes sense, but most software was moving to the cloud even before AI. Why sell someone a copy of ms office when you can get them to subscribe to O365?
I think the self hosting moment will gather steam and maybe prove itself superior for certain cases
i have no idea how that link relates to what i said or the part you quoted
i didn't make, consult, or otherwise have any input on that site. i do not use the site. i do not make money from the site. so i am not going to be embarrassed about it.
i think what they are doing is awful. but again, embarrassment implies some form of guilt, shame, mistake, or self-consciousness.
reply