Their point is that the jobs problem or flourishing is a mechanical necessity for maintaining the Mandate and surviving whatever things come next.

> Is this something that people are seriously thinking they'll be able to do and successfully stay gainfully employed and contributing to the world?

No. I resisted for a bit but have started using it at work. Mostly because I believe usage is now being monitored. I'm in a very high-scale engineering environment involving both greenfield and massive brownfield codebases and the experience is largely a net loss in productivity. For me and some others who I've spoken to in my org, opting in is a theater that we're required to engage in to keep employment and not a genuine evolution of our craft.

These tools struggle with context once you get deep into a codebase with many, many millions of lines of code and sprawling dependencies. Even for isolated Python scripts or smaller, supporting .NET apps, the time spent correcting subtle bugs or bullshit, or just verifying the bullshit, often exceeds the time it would take to have written it from scratch.

Regardless, what I've observed is that these tools do nothing for the actual bottlenecks of software engineering: requirements gathering (am I writing the right thing?) and verification (does it work without side effects?). Because LLMs are great at generating text, they're actively exacerbating these issues by flooding our process with plausible looking noise.

> I know I should be used to people openly lying with no consequence, but it still amazes me a bit.

Well that makes two of us. Character seems to mean nothing today.

> Can someone help me to understand why OpenAI and Anthropic talks as if the future of humanity controlled by them?

He wants to build the AI that makes people's lives better. Okay. Did the people ask? Do they have a say? It's all very easy for a billionaire to say when it's just him and a couple of people in his cohort in the driver's seat.

Beyond that I'd like to simply know why he thinks any of this is his responsibility. It seems much more obvious to me that he simply found himself in the right place at the right time and is trying to seize it all for himself as if it's his to take.

Doesn't he famously have zero equity in OpenAI?

directly, yes. indirectly ..no

Can you elaborate? I’d be curious to know how much of this “indirect equity” he holds, and whether that has any bearing whatsoever on whether Sam is trying to amass as much for himself as he can.

Incendiary. Is he trying to suggest the journalists are at fault here?

"I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool."

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Emotive_conjugation

That's exactly what he's trying to do

Yes.

Yes. This administration is on a blitz ahead of the midterms. Rubio has his eyes on Cuba and he's positioned himself next to Trump. It is happening.

It would be absolutely astounding to read TFA and then continue to take this weasel and his word at face value.

Aren't these things just legal fictions that only exist because/as long as the US government allows it?

Yes, after Ukraine war started, there are instances of companies's stakes being sold for 1$ only. So yes it is all legal fiction but we have to operate according to that fiction in peacetime world order setup we are in.

So it's a controlled demolition? In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt? Extract value while it still has value?

> In this view, is the goal to devalue our own debt?

I'm sure that'll be some quacks argument, but I think the goal is simpler. Straight up looting by those in power and their rich friends.

Service for citizenship, stationed along the border walls and manning really big fucking guns seems to be the place my brain always goes to in these sorts of conversations.

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

I'm doing my part!

Would you like to know more?