We need to come up with a catchy buzzword salad to market to executives. Something like "increased communication efficiency between workers by direct brain-email-brain interface"
I used AI to do a lot of stress testing and to see what patterns fall out of the setting rule I wrote. Helped a lot with grammar checking and general editing. Brainstorming too.
When you write enough materials, the AI generated output started becoming less generic and actually interesting. Really cool. Still wouldn't use the generated output. The ideas, yes, but not the words.
I write every single word. It's not a shortcut by any means. Just means that your work can be narratively and technically more rigorous. Using AI to generate stories for you defeat the purpose.
If it didn't take you at least an hour to create something worthwhile, it's likely that you generated slop.
> If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue), it can prevent ignition startup or limit vehicle speed.
Tesla does absolutely nothing like this. The closest things are that it'll kick you out of AP/FSD if you're screwing around with your phone, and it'll advise you use AP/FSD if you're driving manually and pinging between lane lines.
I’m talking about general attention tracking, but this is still just an extension of that and not “surveillance.”
It’s also a hypothetical at this point because the system doesn’t exist, and there’s no consensus about whether it’s “fail open,” vulnerable to a centimeter square patch of electrical tape, or if it can randomly brick your car when it has errors. I would bet on the former.
I wish I hadn't bothered reading this; it's an LLM-written love letter to Claude Code, and doesn't contain the details you'd expect from an exploit article.
LLM-generated text that is a hallucinated-from-scratch opinion is practically indistinguishable from LLM-generated text that is rooted in your research notes.
I find putting the former into my brain abhorrent to such an extent that I am willing to forego reading the few instances of the latter. I'd much rather have your raw research notes and observations.
A good economy is an economy that benefits most of the population and not just a few percent at the top. I would argue it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable.
A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people. In a crash rich people lose a lot of paper money but not-rich people may have trouble affording shelter or food. Or middle class may lose their savings.
> it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable
This penalizes economic dynamism and moves economic decision making from risk taking to whoever defies the baseline distribution.
> A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people
Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking.
> Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking.
The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time. What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly.
> wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling
Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.)
Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment.
> What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly
This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was.
To me, there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy, and often ends up hurting millions accross the world in the "burst" phases of the cycle.
Also, I don't think we should model our economies and societies after actual jungles. Let's strive for a system where everyone gets enough instead of chasing perfect efficiency and leaving a large part vulnerable to be crushed by any moderately strong wind.
> This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was.
I am not advocating for central planning or any form of communism. I'm just noticing that nowadays, it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow.
> there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy
The speculation I’m describing is entrepreneurship. That is the core risk taking that makes market systems competitive. To the extent stock markets support that, they’re socially useful. (In America, liquid stock markets support liquid private markets that support entrepreneurship pretty directly.)
> it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow
I’d argue the opposite. The economy is doing remarkably well given we’re at war (kinetic and trade) and just getting over Kristi Noem.
Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk. If it pays off good, it was a good move but if it was bad one let the risk taker suffer.
> Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk
If the odds (and pay-outs) are 10,000:1 and you cap pay-outs at 1,000:1, you've made a high-risk/high-reward risk unworkable in your economy. Systems that target a distribution tend to wind up in that mode, with the risk takers taking their risks (and producing their rewards) outside the system.
Keeping distributions stable means capping upsides. There are better ways to redistribute wealth.
> bailouts where risk should have wiped out at least some of these so-called risk takers
Sure. I’m not saying we have a great system right now. Just that swinging to the other end is also a bad idea. You want risk takers to enjoy their fruits when they win and suffer their losses when they lose.
Restrictive zoning and the lack of walkable neighbourhoods makes it very difficult for small businesses that rely on personal service. This isn't just a slight inconvenience, but it completely changes the fabric of society. But in American libertarian circles taxation takes up all the oxygen in the room. People are generally blind to opportunity cost.
In a good economy, value can flow from source (supply) to destination (demand), easily. You have plenty of opportunities to sell your labour, and the compensation you recieve is good enough to buy you the things you need like housing and food
One should look at the real activity of the economy to understand it -- not at the flow of money.
A good economy is one where there is lots of value for the consumers. How does value flow to consumers? Through a price signal. A price signal which is accurate is one where the flow of money in one direction is commensurate with the flow of value in the other direction. One can think of the flow of money as if it were a nervous system: the nerves send signals, and the muscle moves.
In a competitive marketplace (such as restaurants), the most successful restaurants are almost always the ones with the best food, the best ambiance, etc. Money flows away from bad restaurants and to good restaurants, because there is a lot of market competition between restaurants. If you serve bad food, you're out of business. The muscle is well controlled by the nerve.
Now, in the US economy, in many sectors, there is no real competition. For example, in online advertising, there is only two companies that one can use. In groceries, there is only 3 major grocery chains. In insurance, in food, etc etc. There is functionally no competition in those sectors and very frequently there is outright collusion.
In this case, the signal is far less meaningful. What signal does it send to Google, if I drop them for Facebook? The answer is, not much of a signal, because there's not meaningful competition between these two entities. They both suck and they both know that they won't lose customers if they degrade their services, commit fraud, or stagnate.
Many many swathes of the American economy are like this. The obvious ones, like healthcare, are so monopolized that your signal means absolutely nothing. They will do nothing to keep you as a customer. They will do nothing to meaningfully improve their services. You will still pay. This is like a muscle that sucks nutrients but is completely disconnected from the nervous system.
That is a "bad" economy. Of course, the market value of these companies has never been higher. Why? Because there are very few sectors of the economy where capital can flow that are actually competitive. This has knock-on effects, like having capital flow into other assets like bitcoin or housing, in search of returns.
It's not that these corporations are "too wealthy" by some ethical definition. They are too concentrated, which makes them inefficient. Dealing with a large health insurance company today is not unlike dealing with USSR bureaucracy in 1970. Our economy is slowly being transformed into one where a very small group of private central planners manage the allocation of the whole of social resources. This quite predictably impoverishes everyone.
The USA economy today is like a paraplegic. We can still get around but there is a lot of dead nerves.
A "good economy" is one that isn't compulsory. One that doesn't require enslavement and genocide. One that doesn't require oppression. One that is aligned with the environments it operates in.
One that we can walk away from without necessarily risking premature death or enslavement for doing so.
One of the things LLMs destroyed was the writing-style sidechannel. You could tell with reasonable accuracy whether something was worth reading (and/or trusting) based on how it was written.
Now every idiot has access to well-formatted text. I preferred when idiots sounded like idiots.
reply