I would also take those studies with a grain of salt at this point, or at least taking into consideration that a model from even a few months ago might have significant enough results from the current frontier models.
And in my personal experience it definitely helps in some tasks, and as someone who doesn't actually enjoy the actual coding part that much, it also adds some joy to the job.
Recently I've also been using it to write design docs, which is another aspect of the job that I somewhat dreaded.
I think the bigger part of those studies was actually that they were a clear sign that whatever productivity coefficient people were imagining back then was clearly a figment of their imagination, so it's useful to take that lesson with you forward. If people are saying they're 2 times productive with LLMs, it's still likely the case that a large part of that is hyperbole, whatever model they're working with.
It's the psychology of it that's important, not the tool itself; people are very bad at understanding where they're spending their time and cannot accurately assess the rate at which they work because of it.
I like coming up with the system design and the low level pseudo code, but actually translating it to the specific programming language and remembering the exact syntax or whatnot I find pretty uninspiring.
Same with design docs more or less, translating my thoughts into proper and professional English adds a layer I don't really enjoy (since I'm not exactly great at it), or stuff like formatting, generating a nice looking diagram, etc.
Just today I wrote a pretty decent design doc that took me two hours instead of the usual week+ slog/procrastination, and it was actually fairly enjoyable.
You don't think Venezuela having the largest oils reserves on the planet and it being a strong ally to Russia, Iran and China make the possible reward fairly significant from a US standpoint?
Sure it's conceivable. Can you go a level deeper on your analysis?
Are you suggesting that cutting off oil flow to those nations will be advantageous to us? Is this like... tomorrow? During a potential armed conflict? When?
By what specific mechanism does the US assert "control" over the oil? POTUS just now said it's via a ground occupation "until transition of power." What's the transition plan?
Not cutting off, but it's enough that the US increases oil supply which lowers the prices to significantly hurt Russia and Iran. And then you have China which is the main consumer of Venezuelan oil so you get another point of leverage.
Also probably helps to ensure the petro dollar is here to stay for longer.
Obviously this is a very shallow analysis, and there's definitely significant risks, but I do think it's obvious that it has large potential upsides.
It's not shallow, it is gullible. Of course Trump has an angle otherwise he wouldn't have done this. We can speculate about what the angle is but there is absolutely no way that he did this for the good of the Venezuelan population.
Edit: So, that took only 8 minutes, the other shoe just dropped, it was about the oil after all. Where do I collect my check?
Oh yeah, I'm certain the intent behind this wasn't for the sake of the Venezuelan population, but that in itself doesn't mean it won't result in a better outcome for the population (but also not saying that it will)
The thing I occasionally say about Trump is: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
We ("the opposition") can't get into the frame where we say that everything Trump does is wrong. It's not frequent, but sometimes - yes even for totally wrong reasons - he does things which are probably right. Our identity needs to be more than just "the opposite of what Trump does", otherwise the Trumpists will frame all debates around issues that make us look crazy, rather than the issues that demonstrate blatant grift and criminality.
If Maduro is gone, it's a good thing. Let's go back to talking about the clear and obviously terrible things Trump does. Don't let them change the subject.
Agree with your overall sentiment but this is just a ridiculous position to hold at this point. History is absolutely full of horrible people being toppled just for more horrible people to take their place. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of a plan for post-Maduro Venezuela. At all!
They're either acting completely clueless for the cameras for some unknown reason, or this is very likely going to go really badly.
Venezuela has already been going really badly, by nearly any quantitative metric of "how going". This is a country that - a couple decades ago - was a rare success story of democracy and prosperity in Latin America.
I think the Venezuelans will work it out, despite Trump's ineptitude.
I can appreciate that but taken to its conclusion it's a recipe for paralysis and complacency. It always could be worse, so let's just let sit here and let shit happen?
Unlike all those places you mention, Venezuela has a democratic tradition which was only recently derailed. This isn't some middle eastern theocratic monarchy. It's "get back on track" not "find new tracks where none existed before".
No, shit can always get worse so act carefully and with a plan.
I and many others are asking for evidence of such a plan. The US administration has denied the existence of such a plan.
Maybe those factors you mention will turn out to be relevant or even determinative, and maybe not. I suspect in absence of an actual plan, the mere tradition of democracy will not suffice.
The Trump administration is incompetent to manage a pre-school, let alone world affairs. We're not going to get a plan. The best we can hope for is an occasional random steps vaguely in the right direction.
Maduro in prison is an improvement from Maduro still in power. Accept it as a tiny win and move on.
Frankly insane position to hold ~24 hours after the events and with the information currently available.
You are aware you're allowed to say, "it'll take some time for this to shake out sufficiently to understand whether it's a tiny win, a huge win, net-neutral, or regionally catastrophic," right?
The future is always uncertain. Sometimes you just have to take the rare chances afforded. "Maduro suddenly recognizes the value of democracy and transitions power to Gonzáles" wasn't on the table.
I'd push the delete button for every unelected dictator on the planet if I could. Repeatedly. It's morally offensive not to.
China is heavily dependent on oil imports and a big part of Germany's defeat in WW2 was due to difficulties obtaining oil. This move may - if successful - change the calculation over Taiwan
Let's say best case scenario, zero innocent casualties and a democratic government takes over and Venezuela prospers - would you still consider it immoral?
That isn’t how morality works. It’s expressly the opposite, a restating of “end justifies the means”. It’s a defensible position to hold, but not a moral one.
> The end does justify the means. This is obvious with even a few seconds' thought, and the fact that the phrase has become a byword for evil is a historical oddity rather than a philosophical truth.
> Hollywood has decided that this should be the phrase Persian-cat-stroking villains announce just before they activate their superlaser or something. But the means that these villains usually employ is killing millions of people, and the end is subjugating Earth beneath an iron-fisted dictatorship. Those are terrible means to a terrible end, so of course it doesn't end up justified.
> Next time you hear that phrase, instead of thinking of a villain activating a superlaser, think of a doctor giving a vaccination to a baby. Yes, you're causing pain to a baby and making her cry, which is kinda sad. But you're also preventing that baby from one day getting a terrible disease, so the end justifies the means. If it didn't, you could never give any vaccinations.
> If you have a really important end and only mildly unpleasant means, then the end justifies the means. If you have horrible means that don't even lead to any sort of good end but just make some Bond villain supreme dictator of Earth, then you're in trouble - but that's hardly the fault of the end never justifying the means.
Hang on you’re asking me to consider a philosophy that is explicitly aligned with the concept as a counterpoint?
Admittedly I was raised Catholic and it was pretty much the opposite of that. I’m not holding to any one point I guess. I just feel like I “know” regardless of outcome, the current administration did what they did for all the wrong reasons.
USA invaded a country. It was unprovoked, Venezuela did not pose any immediate threat to the safety of USA. There is no moral justification for any of this no matter how you try to spin it. Now Putin can gleefully say: "See? I told you that the West is full of warmongering fascists!"
Technical solutions can lead to diplomatic solutions as it changes the power dynamics.
Will it solve the "root cause"? Probably not, but that's because there's no single "root cause", but it still might lead to some diplomatic resolution.
This does not change any power dynamics. The only time the iron dome has ever come close to failing on a systematic level was when they ran out of interceptors during their own unprovoked war against iran.
When Iran directly, materially, and openly, supports groups or organizations that have as an overt stated goal to destroy Israel, and actively work towards it (both with indiscriminate attacks against civilians, and building infrastructure for future invasions/attacks), I don't think the war is necessarily 'unprovoked'.
We may say that it was unproductive, badly conducted, or a lot of other things, but saying it was unprovoked is like saying that Ukraine has no reasons to attack Iran and/or Belarus. They do have those reasons, because both of those countries directly and materially support their attackers. It just might not be productive to do so (and indeed, Ukraine seems to believe it isn't).
And they didn't provoke a war with Iran. Israel struck those arming Hezbollah. They got somebody high up in the Iranian chain of command. Iran responded with major Geneva violations.
Imagine a scenario where israel doesn't need bomb shelters or sirens since rockets are destroyed almost instantly. Right now even if iron dome works it still greatly disrupts the day to day life in israel (not to mention the pure financial burden of interception)
Now I doubt the technology is anywhere close to that now, but in 10-20 years alongside other technological advancements? Who knows.
Their constant warmongering is why they constantly are being bombarded with rockets.
That you're primarily concerned with disruption to life and financial burden rather than casualties and infrastructure indicates that iron dome is already capable of preventing these rockets from being a serious threat.
The absolute asymmetry of every war they fight is proof enough that the only real solution is a commitment to negotiations and diplomacy. Palestine has under constant siege since long before I was born and they still haven't given up despite having the worst kdr of the last 80 years. They don't care about the laser dome, they will keep fighting.
Also I have doubts about this laser boondoggle, its far more susceptible to atmospheric disturbance and flack than a surface-to-air missile and it relies upon having access to a stable source of electricity during an air raid.
Israel desires to avoid a continuation of the Holocaust.
Iran desires stirring up trouble as a means of taking over countries, and uses the conflict with Israel as a justification. It's working fine for Iran, why would they agree to peace? They never have, just some stuff playing us for fools. I don't support The Felon but tearing up the Iran agreement was a stopped clock thing.
The left thinks everything can be solved with enough jaw, jaw. The right thinks everything can be solved with enough war, war. Both are wrong.
reply