Many people think a well manicured lawn sprayed with pesticides is preferable to local wildflowers and shrubs.
They "have a different assessment" but they're still contributing to an extinction event. You don't need to be a super villain. You can simply be selfish. Once scaled to many many selfish people, you have a collective villain.
SamPatt, it isn't necessarily individuals making individual decisions. Yeah, very few supervillains.
But perhaps you've heard talk of things like "6th mass extinction event" or "global climate change"?
both of which are direct consequences of our industrialized society?
Look, I'm personally grateful for modern medicine and indoor plumbing, to name a few things. I don't want to go back to some idealized hunter-gatherer past (yes, I've tried it).
And regardless of the actual truth of ecological and climate collapse, or your particular views on the actual truth of these, enough people see enough convincing evidence that the parent poster's view is supported by enough people to matter.
People shutting down efforts to transition from fossil fuels because they can make more money from fossil fuels and will be dead before they experience any of the consequences are the typical example.
We have billionaries and LLCs, supervillains whose superpowers are based on being rich, don't worrying about the future much beyond the next quarter, and pretending personhood to hold rights like people, but without the possibility of getting arrested.
Emotions do seem to act as signaling, but is that the same as an attempt at manipulation for the benefit of the individual?
It seems conceivable in social groups that having an honest accounting of how people are feeling (via emotions) available to the group might benefit the group in achieving their goals while not always benefiting the individual.
To give one perspective of many, Marshall Rosenberg spent his life researching emotions and violence, and from his point of view, anything you do can ultimately be traced back to your own goals. In his view, it’s more useful to allow this idea and explore it, without judging it as negative. Survival/benefit of the group can be your very own personal (long term) goal. For example, a typical tradeoff is your (very own) need to belong, since your survival literally depends on it. No need to see it as either-or; to resolve the inner conflict, one can own both sides of the argument.
Making your emotional state transparent to the group can in that sense again benefit yourself (and the group), but to think that is always the case and that everybody will comply (or even be able to) will lead to disappointment (disillusion), out of principle, since you are installing a moral rule that doesn’t match reality. The verbal sharing of your emotions might successfully (and openly) manipulate the group to include your own goals, and/or the actions you take (taking your emotions into account or not) might.
Note how I am using “manipulation” in its original/neutral form, which means “to move”/influence. Typically, we use the word to convey a judgement - some forms of attempted influence we see as good/acceptable, others we see as negative. But that judgement is based on our own values, and somebody else will have different values. We can see this in how our cultures judge lying (and how that judgement changes over time). Is not sharing all you know a lie (of omission)? Is it acceptable to not always share all your thoughts? In many cultures (families), it is deemed offensive to tell certain truths; there is an expectation to lie! Once there is an expectation, it is not considered manipulation. In some hacker communities, sharing your emotions is considered offensive and an unacceptable attempt of manipulation!
A simplistic perspective which you can check for yourself and compare with others: Anger means you experience something you judge as wrong and possible to influence. Sadness means you experience something you judge as wrong but outside of your sphere of influence. Fear is a judgement of danger. The judgement is real; the situation itself may not actually be dangerous (today). It’s a signal, but it’s not based on reality/facts but your own judgement of it. You can tune the signal and thus your experience by investigating and changing your judgments - without sacrificing any of your needs or goals. Emotional reprogramming takes time, but it’s not outside of your control, nor is it driven by some higher truth than your own judgments, based on your prior experiences.
Many comments are mocking the "Non-technical teams are now shipping production code" line as an obvious disaster waiting to happen.
I think this will be commonplace in the not too distant future.
Some disasters will happen, just like they did before AI. Skeptics will gleefully point out these failures while more and more non-technical teams ship code.
Will they also do the maintenance, future migrations, and handle prod alerts at 2am? I’m all to empower non technical people but shipping prod code isn’t the way to do it. What will happen is a very large amount of unmaintained services with no coherence, that will accumulate over time. I cannot imagine the monsters we will after a few years of that being normalized
No, because you're misunderstanding how this works.
Technical teams still need to design and build out the infra.
Technical teams still need to think about how to design and secure the backend systems.
The only thing that changes is that non technical people can now build UIs and internal tools on top of your core assuming you have solid APIs, MCPs, docs, and components to build on top of.
If you're allowing non-technical teams deploy mission critical software then you're not doing it right.
No one wakes up the frontend dude at 2am because the JS is doing something weird in the browser... All of the core infra and backend should still belong to technical teams.
I'm sure Coinbase understands this and when they say non-technical people are shipping software they don't mean they're vibe coding terraform infra and deploying full-stack user-facing applications.
I do understand the theory, none of what you mentioned is new to me or contradict my points. I do not believe things will be done right. It’s not only mission critical services that require maintenance and need to handle incidents. Internal services are as important to a company as their public facing ones, and once you get the ball rolling I do not believe we won’t see the same approach used for customer facing services. I also do not expect non technical people to understand differences between MCP servers, rest apis, direct db access, and other resources. If they do they are definitely technical… so it will be up to whatever they let the agent do. Which is the whole problem here, you need to be technical to understand and push back when agents are doing things wrong
This is a whole lot of speculation masquerading as knowing what you’re talking about. You don’t have a clue what the CEO meant. If you did, you wouldn’t be talking here.
Many people say this and they also say (see top comment) it being for financial company. But this being for financial company is an extra layer of risk that I am not willing to take personally.
You can see when they buy or sell a position. It's on the blockchain so it's all public. And yes, copying positions is called copy-trading and it's extremely popular.
Orders aren't public though. Only the actual trades. This is important because by the time the trade is known by others very often the edge is gone. Especially if you have other people watching the same trader and they all try to copy the trade at the same time.
Not all strategies are low-latency, so you can copy trade someone with a buy and hold approach. For example someone you think is an insider or whale who might influence the outcome.
It wasn't about having the videos held hostage, but about the ease of accessing and viewing them. I didn't want to do DVDs at all - frankly, that's just a bad experience to go through 200+ hours of unlabeled video.
My siblings are very much not developers. That's a lot of data for them to download, store, and figure out a way to view.
I was worried they'd just see a list of filenames and not put in the effort. By creating a streaming experience, I thought they'd actually watch them.
You might be correct that Gemini could have helped, I didn't test it, but much of the knowledge of who was in a scene, where it was, and why it would matter is inside my head. I doubt any model could effectively label locations and people over 20 years of video.
As to the opportunity cost - I'm currently looking for work, so mine is undoubtedly lower than yours!
> My siblings are very much not developers. That's a lot of data for them to download, store, and figure out a way to view.
I wasn't suggesting anything about your siblings, but you, who are a developer. I was just talking about the actual download step, not what you did after that. (Obviously you were going to host them somewhere else in some other form. Probably not DVDs but a little quickie website or maybe just a Flash drive with a HTML file index, say, I don't know, lots of options here to make it user-friendly for your siblings on Christmas Day. The hard drive or Flash drive idea has the benefit of LOCKSS, especially if you use up the spare space providing PAR2 FEC.)
> I doubt any model could effectively label locations and people over 20 years of video.
Actually, Gemini is highly promptable with a large context window and a single still image only takes up ~300 tokens IIRC, so I think that you could probably do so! Just include, say, 3 photos of each person over time with a natural language description, and 1 photo of each location, and that might be enough to get back useful labels. Gemini can even do bounding boxes. (Google is quite proud of its vision and video analysis capabilities.) And you can run multiple passes or split up videos etc.
Ah I understand you now. Yes I could have had a service do the digitizing then only done delivery myself. And given the time investment that probably would have been more sound. I don't think I'd do it all myself if I did it again.
I didn't know Gemini models were that capable. I admit I'm still skeptical about this approach though - even if it were capable of accurately labeling people and locations across decades, there's no way it could know when a scene is of personal interest. I kept a running log for each sibling as I was manually doing the labeling, knowing what they'd want to see, which presumably is only possible for me and my siblings to do with any accuracy.
If AI could ever do that then we've definitely hit ASI!
> I kept a running log for each sibling as I was manually doing the labeling, knowing what they'd want to see, which presumably is only possible for me and my siblings to do with any accuracy.
But you could feed that back in! Just write it down. It's all tokens. As you read over descriptions and note down key pieces of family history or per-sibling details, that provides information about better annotating the next video for possible points of interest. And you can chat with the LLM and write down more general principles. It's not like a LLM like Gemini doesn't know an enormous amount about family life and things of sentimental value, and can't make good initial guesses. And when you do this, you still haven't used up more than a small fraction of the context window with these image references and text profiles and principles...
Discernment still exists.
reply