Also the thing that is infuriating is, do people obsessed with using AI for everything not realise that, they are surplus to the entire process? They are doing 'prompting' or whatever but the end goal will eventually be that they are obsolete and will not be required. Companies will just endlessly, automatically pump out AI generated stuff without any human intervention at all. The tools they gloat about will be closed up and they will not have access to them any more.

You're not really 'keeping up' with anything, you're just fooling yourself into being part of a process that wants to eradicate your presence.

It's almost like embracing this stuff is giving them an illusion of control they don't have

I think the usage of solved is silly. Things get automated, they basically never get ‘solved’.

Will all these things get automation? Yeah sure. But the idea that they will be perfect automated solutions applicable in all cases is just marketing, it’s not reality.

Just to point out re: navier stokes - what was being proven was not a solver or approximations for it, but showing specific circumstances under which it actually returns incorrect (or numerically unusable) answers. Which had been suspected but wasn't known for certain

that just furthers my point, i was vaguely aware that it wasn't a full proof, but I'm not a mathathician, and that detail just re-enforces my point we are proving against human made axiom (certainty of numbers) which are almost certainly not fully correct, if what you are saying is accurate its less of a proof of navier-stokes and more of a proof that our base axioma are not able the model the output of a real physical process and are therefore incomplete or wrong.

also realized i posted this under the wrong story since the OP/story is mostly about human politics.

Although I’m fully expecting actor shenanigans in the full documentary, I think the section in the trailer might actually be her for real

If you read the article, you'll see that they do have someone else play her in the second half. But that's kind of by design...?

The whole ‘NPC’ thing is so juvenile and solipsistic. Believing other people have less mental agency than you doesn’t make you cool and edgy, it makes you come off as an idiot that needs to grow up

(Note I’m not directing this at the author necessarily, just people who do actually engage with this concept as if it is serious/real)

What about people receiving astronomically high wages that vastly outstrip their labour value?

The fact that someone is willing to pay them that much suggests that your valuation of their labor is not universally shared.

And for some strange reason, the person you're replying to is _not_ one of the highly paid executive remuneration consultancies.

Gee, wonder why they only accept advice from people that tell them to give executives more money?

This does not account for collusion.

What does this have to do with my comment? Please don't bring up random unrelated stuff, you're welcome to add a top level comment for that.

The thing is, what I’m asking about is not unrelated. It is the inverse situation - which curiously nobody seems to care about.

And I say ‘curiously’ with some sarcasm, because it is very obvious why the focus is always disproportionately on needing to justify minimum wages for the poor, normally with ridiculous economic value arguments, but not extreme wages for anyone else - which is apparently fine and has zero negative consequences

It's pretty simple - it doesn't bother me if a company decides to pay a worker a lot of money. They could decide to pay their CEO a trillion dollars and it would have zero effect on me.

However, the government mandating a certain wage has a tremendous effect on me.

> They could decide to pay their CEO a trillion dollars and it would have zero effect on me.

> However, the government mandating a certain wage has a tremendous effect on me.

"the government mandating a certain wage" is the definition of minimum wage in this thread. If you are not a minimum wage worker and would not become a minimum wage worker after an increase in the minimum wage, why and how does that have an effect on you, and why would an increase in an executive's salary (multiple orders of magnitude more than minimum wage, and annually increasing in orders-of-magnitude higher dollar amounts than minimum wages do) not have a similar or greater effect on you?

Small minds think alike

This also stands out as strange to me:

> interfacing with around 10 humans in the outside world: myself, my 5-person core game design team

Like, really, there are 5 human designers on this game? What are they doing, exactly?

(Or is this just a fancy way of saying, they approve/reject design proposals of the stack of agents, and they have zero agency of their own?)

Assuming he's doing this well, and he implies he is, they're doing the content - stories, characters, graphics, level design. He says Fable isn't good at that stuff - his human games designers presumably are.

Why CSAM specifically? Isn’t it mostly going to be just vanilla fraud?

Disposable mail providers generate a ton of spam too, but CSAM is illegal to host, so it's pretty risky to allow them unmitigated.

Citation needed that you'll go to jail if a user uploads child porn to your site and you remove it when notified

My experience has been that it has a major advantage, in that freeze + offline actually work properly. You can collect the dependencies you need once, put them in version control and never ever talk to remote registry again

You mean leave all CVEs open?

I guess that’s more of a problem if you use all-encompassing frameworks, but normally the things I’m using are very small components where the CVEs either don’t exist or are inconsequential/unexploitable for the programs I’m building

So you don't track them, have no way of tracking them and just hope for the best. I hope no customer of yours asks for an SBOM :D

Updating every dependency for every kind of CVE is a brute force method for people and organisations that don’t understand the attack surface of the programs they’re producing

And vendoring without having any idea of what is in there and doing no monitoring is peak engineering?

Who is doing what you’re describing? The reason I can confidently freeze and offline stuff is because I’m not taking in whole frameworks, I’m selecting things carefully, and generally do end up reading at least most of the source

And what ‘monitoring’ are you going to be doing besides things like CVEs?

> How it is made should be irrelevant in the process.

No? If you are employed (or requested in this case I guess) to offer your expert opinion, the expert they want to hear from is you, not someone else you farm your work out to - whether that’s an LLM or another person

Cynically, the purpose of the expert witness is someone to provide something which is treated as fact but isn't subject to penalties of perjury.

Interesting piece. Seems to be that the expert cannot falsify things but his opinion is an opinion. So there is no good/bad in that.

Not sure how it legally works, I think in the legal system at least in the US it is quite common that experts are hired and giving opinions based on who hires them?

And then the other party can cross examine? Not enough knowledge on that but it’s interesting if legal people could chime in on how it works.

I hope those expert “opinions” are not taken as facts?

How is this any different from any job? Or at least any knowledge worker job like an engineer or some sort? They hired you, so presumably they want you to do the work or solve the problem, not farm it out to another person or an LLM.

Does it matter how it was created? Whether you had a subordinate create it, or an employee, or a contractor, googled it, cited a study, or some other method. You as the expert look at the conclusion and either agree with it or disagree.

I think if people looked at LLM as just tools or interns, which you should always check or question their conclusions, then they'd 1) not believe everything LLMs tell you and 2) they would get better responses after critiquing the LLM response.