The future is agentic swarms or whatever comes after that doing the prompting for you if the AI companies succeed. You're going to be left behind either way.

It was still the human writing the code. In the last several years it's become the human writing the prompt, which has led to agentic development, and the next step seems to be removing the human from managing the agents.

Are you planning on voting for a third term? Because Trump isn't on the ballot in the midterms.

Why would you give this administration the benefit of doubt?

What is the need for a coffeemaker on the internet?

A coffee maker was the subject of the world's first webcam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot :^)

Yeah, but the people running the Webcam probably didn't make notes about the watch / rings / shirt / dress / shoes worn by the people using the coffee maker, nor take down whether they were wearing glasses and if they added milk - and sell this information to the local jewelers, clothes shop, shoe shop, opticians and dairy.

Probably.

AI as a tool to augment human intelligence that everyone has access to if they want to use it is fine. As long as it's humans using the tool to do work, be creative, help us live better lives, make improvements. Not vice versa. And as long as it's optional, not forced on everyone.

Anything beyond that is highly questionable and potentially dangerous.

I just find it hard to understand the tool arguement from time to time. This isn't like when spinning jenny came out, or when the calculator came out.

It's so much better,smarter,more effective and affects so many different parameters.

This news after the last centuries old cottonwood was knocked down in Arizona to clear way for an border wall with to stop a low level of illegal migration despite protests and lawsuits from the locals.

That is disheartening. They couldn't build around it? It seems particularly malicious.

I’d refer you to the news since January 2025, it’s been a series of intentionally malicious acts attempting to destroy faster than can be built.

So they are going to replace all the banking, utility, social media, news, gaming, streaming, government, work apps and other important websites people still rely on? Those companies and organizations are just going to provide an API to the chatbots?

How do sites like Wikipedia get updated? What if I need to upload important documents to different portals? It all has to go through the AI companies? They have access to medical records too? My taxes, social security, etc?

Is this how Microsoft imagines Office 365 and Sharepoint will be merged into? Disney, NY Times, Youtube, Netflix will all be fine with chatbots handling their content?

Funny, but it was originally intended for the average person to develop their own software for the upcoming PC revolution. So the language was meant to be small and easy to learn. Something a child could learn to use.

Regarding #2, reminds me of Wittgenstein's claim that, "If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him", because for Wittgenstein meaning is use, and lions would have different use for words than we do since there is no shared culture or biology. It would likely be even more incommensurable for sea creatures who don't share dry land with us.

I have some problems with Wittgenstein's philosophy when applied to human rationality (I think cross-game invariant structures do exist) but here I think it's an apt observation and you could very well be right. Nice!

there's this notion that things are so arbitrary and beings are so different that one can't understand eachother. I find this fascinatingly wrong.

No, we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid. We can't understand lions also because we haven't researched them enough.

My bet: once "beings" cross an IQ threshold, they can start to understand each other.

You might be right. I dont think its certain though. Humans seem to be able to communicate across language gaps in ways we can't with animals. Things really could be that different. For example, all human languages that we know about have some idea of a who doing something to a whom, even if they express it in drastically different syntax. For all we know (I'm just making this up, don't take it too seriously), whales might experience the world as a stream of objects. Maybe that's perfectly fine for whale existence. But we can't even really conceptualize that! And how would we know, anyway?

Eh, if I were a mad scientists with a unaligned AI and a wetlab I'd keep jamming more and more language related genes in animals to see if anything interesting happens. I know there's been some work around the NOVA1 gene that is showing interesting results.

Flowers for Algernon IRL? Planet of the apes? What part of this did they miss? (OTOH everyone wants a talking puppy?)

> we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid.

Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.

> we haven't researched them enough.

I don't think you or I know much about the current state of Lion research. This statement is meaningless confabulation.

> Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.

This has no bearing to what I said. We can't understand lions because they are dumb. Sure they are smart enough to hunt in a pack.

My point was that lions communicate with each other using crude ways. They are not secretly intelligent or something

> We can't understand lions because they are dumb.

Non-sequitur, unsupported conslusion.

I wonder what Wittgenstein would have to say about Alex the African Grey.