1. Humanoid robots learn to do everything. Perfectly plausible at current progress rates.
2. The skill is removed and AI acts as a leveler, same as in programming. You still need humans to point the nail gun and squeeze the trigger, but everything else is just instructions coming into their smart glasses from an AI. The tradesman is just a meat proxy.
I work in robotics. You are sadly mistaken. There is exactly a 0% chance that humans are still using wrenches by hand in 2076 (unless there's some global collapse from climate change / war)
I'd say there's similar challenges to changing legacy hardware/software and all it interacts with. If all you're doing is new then you could probably devise a robot friendly standard and they'd take over the profession, the issue is the huge variety of how plumbing is implemented within a building of any given age, different building eras in a city, across a country, different countries, complying with all their different sets of regulations, all the variety of parts they connect to. That's with very little plumbing knowledge, in my field of courier shipping where companies have been actively pursuing automation for a long time and still are, even if one of the largest companies with influence like amazon are able to standardize on a few things, it's a huge number of other entities they need to interface with where they are limited on how much they can push (i.e. standard size items) without making themselves irrelevant.
> But the people who will be replaced won’t have money to pay the people with wrenches.
Those people will spend their savings, sell their houses to live in the smaller ones, or find another jobs. They will probably gonna get poorer. But the majority of the people with wrenches definitely will get richer, that is how economy works.
The solution to this problem is as old as computers: it's a folder. Just use folders.
`cd` to a folder. Launch `claude`. Do your work. Save scripts and documentation in that folder. `/resume` previous conversations from that folder.
That's it. That's the trick.
Now, having very static, very well-defined folders helps a lot. I'm Johnny.Decimal so I have numbered folders for everything I do. So my process when I want to use my 'process a travel booking from my email to my calendar' script is:
- `jd tripsy`
- The folder name includes 'tripsy' and this is how I remember it.
- `jd` just parses my limited tree and `cd`s me to a folder.
- `jd 21.15` gets me there by number if preferred.
- `claude`
- Say 'hey Claude, there's a new email in my inbox please'.
Legally and culinarily, they're vegetables. Botanically they're fruit.
Tomatoes are members of the nightshare family which includes tobacco, potato, and chili peppers.
They are used in popular recipes like Mexican salsa and Italian pasta sauce. Pasta sauce commonly uses the San Marzano variety. Here's a of San Marzano tomatoes from our Italy trip.
Rhett likes tomatoes in all dishes. Link only likes tomatoes if they're blended in a dish like pasta sauce or tomato soup. Frank is allergic and can't have tomatoes.
Obvious AI copy on the landing page says to me that you don't care about the product.
I know the thing was written by an AI. That's cool: I do the same myself. They're better at code than we are.
But the product is the thing I'm buying. It's the reason I would consider giving you $50/month rather than getting Claude to knock me up my own version. If I don't think you care about the product enough to explain it in your own words, why on earth would I ever give you money?
(Not a personal attack. I feel this way about every new site and it seems like you're interested in feedback. I wish you all the best.)
I hear you loud and clear, thank you. I need to prioritize fixing the copy.
(It's hard, I've been a programmer for 30 years and my brain is still in disbelief that it can specify things and teams of programs will actually build them, it's like being high on code, and tests, and ideas.)
Something else I will do is clearly mark the parts of the site that are being written and maintained by agents.
Incidentally, I do actually care about human writing. Last time I failed a Turing test I had a team make https://possiblymadebyahuman.com just for fun.
Which is why the only people authorised to declare an incident are your incident managers. They follow the published guidelines which dictate what's a Sev 2 and what isn't.
A manager of a service may not declare their own service a Sev 2. If they can, your incident management process is broken.
It doesn't matter how much it makes. If the system finds that you've financially damaged someone, you aren't asked to just pay back the exact retail price of one unit. It can account for the overall damage to the owner, your scale, ability to pay, and the time and money wasted to get the money out of you. The penalty can be anything.
I heard (via Steve Novella of the Skeptic's Guide) that there was similarly light evidence to support flossing, but mostly because nobody's bothered doing the studies.
The reason for that? It's obvious that flossing is going to help. Obviously brushing away cruft is better than not. So why waste the money on a boring study?
I can see the same for the electric toothbrush argument. Of course it's going to be at least as good if not incrementally better than me see-sawing my way around my mouth.
> the single biggest thing that makes a difference is brushing for the full 2 minutes, and electric toothbrushes can help with that by having a built-in timer
As someone who had toothbrushes for the longest time with a single 2 minute timer, and now has one with 4× 30s timers, I can say that the difference is radical.
I don't understand how I got bored in 2 minutes but I don't get bored in 4×30s, but I do not. Every quadrant gets the full time, and twice a day I do it for the full 2 minutes, no exceptions. That wasn't the case before.
Altman and Amodei do not make a living out of that. They make a living out of being CEOs of OpenAI and Anthropic. Whether they are doing well in this position is a different question, but that has little to do with their public predictions.
Nah they do, Sam does nothing but lie in an effort to keep up share price. Selling people an impossible future is the job of OpenAI CEO. If tokens were profitable it'd be selling tokens, but they aren't so the only other option is selling ridiculous predictions to investors
What? The only reason their companies make so much money is BECAUSE they make their predictions about AI replacing every job soon.
A couple months ago it seemed is was their ONLY job.
Neither company is remotely close to making a profit yet. To the extent people at those companies make money, it is unrealized capital appreciation driven by successively higher valuations during successive funding rounds.
In short, financially they are still running on hype. Quite a lot of operations are being paid out of capital, not revenues. So they have to keep selling a dream to keep raising capital. Next stop: IPO.
People who "make predictions" are like psychics. Unless those predications are uncannily good – in which case we call that person an analyst – we can assume that the person is either wilfully lying, or that they're stupid.
Ed's predictions have so far failed to come true. I don't think he's stupid (but I might be wrong). That leaves me feeling like he's the psychic who knows exactly what they're doing. They're telling a gullible audience a story they want to hear because it's a nice way to earn a living.
Comparing him to the CEOs of companies who produce incredibly useful products used by millions is facile nonsense.
This research is not current, and is based on a flawed premise - generated agents.md are used. There isn’t a hand curated agents.md that has some knowledge passed to it that is withheld then measured against.
I think there is overall something here for current Claude which is there appears to be a hierarchy of conformance that breaks progressive disclosure and the utility of skills. It seems to honor the system prompt, user instructions, tool call results, and dead last skills. It applies a large amount of discretion as to whether to honor what skills say in the imperative and progressive disclosure seems to have at best a 20-30% recall. Other models like codex gpt 5.6 seem to be the exact opposite and slavishly adhere to the Agent/skills/plugins, to the point of being wasteful and dangerous. It feels clear there’s a tension being RL’ed around between conformance and skeptical behavior that neither has quite found the balance for yet, and is almost certainly an over constrained problem. I just find it funny Anthropic is the one you can’t trust with your wallet while OpenAI does precisely what you and your harness tell it to.
But this “science” and its editorializing are based on flawed techniques, don’t lead to the conclusion let alone the editorialized extrapolation, and are l
Never is a strong take (for an easy to find example, the Bun port posts had a ton of comments about the interests of the author rather than the results), but even if we switch it to a "much less commonly" interpretation of the phrase I'd say most pro AI articles talk about what someone/some group has been doing with it and that's what gets the majority of the skepticism goes. On the other side, most anti-AI articles are about what the author sees, so they they tend to be the focus of the skepticism instead.
Still, I agree it doesn't make much sense to only talk about who's writing the content instead of the content. Perhaps, generously, the other comments covered their opinions on fhat part already.
Yeah, something immediately felt wrong about the entire framing of the article.
I work on several projects on the side, and they all have agents files that give the context about what the project is, what the elements of it are, and what things we're typically working on. This allows my initial prompt to reference things that would otherwise not be in the context at all.
I mean, they're not magic, they're just some automatic context that's supplied. I feel like the study is trying to say that context with an LLM doesn't matter, which is obviously not a tractable position to hold.
The fact that they generated all the agents files instead of curating them with a human is probably part of the problem.
People with wrenches aren't being replaced any time in the next 50 years.
reply