That's fine until, for example and by analogy, you go to the store to buy beer, and you don't particularly care for IPA, but IPAs have crowded out half the beers that used to be there including the one you used to sit back and enjoy.
How does the analogy work with music though? Are you saying that because there is now over-produced pop there is now less rock, jazz or whatever you prefer? If so, is that actually true and verifiable by numbers?
More like among the things you could stumble on at random, a greater proportion of them are things you're not interested in. You incur more of a burden of intentionality/effort. Less like discovering, where something happens to you, and more like seeking/finding, an act of will. Which some will say they prefer, maybe even me included...
There are two reasons to doubt that. One is that people's opinions change after they have voted. The other is that there is enough evidence of 2024 election "anomalies" to consider the vote itself suspect.
Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison showed up at the Whipple Federal Building and were initially allowed in, but shortly after, asked to leave and blocked from touring the facility.
What pisses me off about this story is, that's the end of the story. We went in, they told us to get out, we told them they're breaking the law, they said "We don't care," and we realized how cogent and amazing that was, and said "Welp, that satisfies me! They sure did win that argument! Let's skedaddle everybody!" The only acceptable end of the story is that you went around and deputized whoever you needed and went back in there and got what you came for.
Exactly. Let it become a spectacle.
Let them cross red lines. Don’t let them regroup and come up with some falsified justification like Noem is doing repeatedly (with this policy, with Renee Good’s murder, etc).
Whatever these people do sets precedent due to the public exposure they get. If they start more (physical) confrontations, the more extreme among their supporters may see that as an invitation to become less peaceful. The administration would see that as a justification for cracking down harder. Protesters that are breaking the law would be the icing on top.
Tim Waltz's decision to increasing the readiness of Minnesotas National guard shows that the situation is extremely tense and the opposition to the administration is forced to walk on eggshells.
It's a near perfect catch: do too little and they won't care and continue implementing their playbook. Do too much and they can and will move faster.
"Doing too much" such that they move faster is called opposing them and losing, and really still consists of not doing enough. Doing enough to stop them (i.e. opposing them and winning) is doing enough.
In a way, you're not wrong... but I think actually doing enough requires ordinary citizens to rise up en masse, and I think they realize that's not going to happen, so unfortunately the safer option seems to be walking on eggshells.
This is submission to tyranny, and it’s not safer in the long run.
The only institution that matters once a regime rejects law and order, is we the people. If the people roll over, then they are submitting to their dominators, and no one is free.
You're not wrong. People are too comfortable to do anything though, so failure is likely inevitable.
Same thing has been happening at least since the Mayans... they refused to give up their lifestyles even in the face of their own surrounding natural resources being eaten up from their fast expansion, and they eventually died off.
It is nearly impossible to argue for use of force and defend the current constitution at the same time. Those politicians would act against the one construct that gives them the legitimate power to act in the first place.
On that path, the current order would have to be broken down completely before a new one can be fully established. That would mean at least a new constitutional order and the US isn't ready for that. The reverence for the current constitution is has very strong roots in US society.
You're saying anyone using force to enforce the Constitution (yes, the current one, thanks for specifying) is automatically acting illegitimately. The Constitution isn't a nonviolence treatise; nowhere in it does it forbid the use of force to enforce itself. Also, I notice you appear to apply no such restriction upon the treasonous and the lawless, who are already working to undermine and oppose the Constitution and are apparently free to use violence to do that. This is literally the opposite of the truth and not how laws work. Unless you're saying all police enforcing laws are illegitimate? But then that means ICE is also illegitimate. It's a perfect catch.
I was looking at the roles of elected politicians in this, not the general public or the police force. I think I wasn't clear about this.
A constitution should have peace and prosperity for the country as one of its goals. This means that force against the people should be the monopoly of an institution that is governed by laws in order to uphold at least a minimum amount of order in pursuit of the other goals. That legitimizes police.
Now we get to the matter of how a certain constitutional order is allowed to defend itself against domestic threats within its own legal framework. The US constitution relies a lot on balance of power and does not regulate much else in case that this fails. I do not know of any constitutional right for a congressman to lead violent actions against other parts of the government. And that leads to the situation where the most effective actions to restore order are more detrimental to that order in the short term.
And the Democratic party is refusing to go there. Think of that what you will, but that's why their actions amd responses are so tame.
Senator Tillis today: the independence and credibility of DOJ is what are in question, not the Fed or Fed chairman. And he says he will block Fed nominees until the legal matter is resolved.
Republicans are the majority party. The opposition party constituents need to persuade only a handful of Republicans in each house, get them to caucus with Democrats, and you have an entirely lawful, civil, non-violent way of opposing a president.
This has a greater chance of enduring success than expecting an increasing body count of people getting shot in the face to persuade more people to participate.
I am aware most Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to enable Trump. But accepting that as the intractable part of the problem? No, the intractable part is extracting more votes out of the party in the minority.
I personally don't trust Republican members of congress to stand up against their administration in any meaningful and coordinated way. But I would love to see that happen as the start of a restoration of a functional balance of power. This could set the US on a nonviolent path to reduced tension and hopefully towards a normalcy in politics with the possibility of more honesty and fairness from th administration, open civil discourse around contentious topics and non-erratic decision making (I am still allowed to dream, right?)
I don’t trust them either, mainly because the Republicans in Congress were not elected for their trustworthiness to honor their oath to the Constitution, but to let Trump do as he wishes.
Almost all Republicans in Congress who challenged Trump have quit or lost their elections. The survivors do his bidding.
Hopefully they still have some limits we’re as yet unaware.
That is the appeal I’m making, is for these elected officials who ostensibly represent everyone in their district or state, not only the people who voted for them. They really do still old school tally up letters and phone calls.
I’m saying before the next election, that’s what we have. And peaceful assembly.
You simply don't know what the goal was. I would think that breathing life into a vile monster would, among other things, tend to make his monsterism more obvious to observers, and perhaps elicit responses exactly like yours. For all you know, maybe that was the goal. (I'm entertaining your whole "goal" rubric for a minute, but since you brought it up in the context of art, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that art needs to have a goal other than "art itself." Art with a goal is arguably propaganda or advertising. But I don't hold that view rigidly either.)
Added a few minutes later:
Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, most of which seem to lean toward shallowly trivializing and dehumanizing the one whose motives are unknown and guessed-at. Could it be that they are a fully-functioning adult with an actual rationale for their actions that you just don't know of?
Allegory: A motorist sees a cyclist on the road, can't understand why they would do that to themselves, and assumes, in the blinding light of their own opinion and car-only experience, that it must be because of a death wish. Based on that shitty reasoning you could go all sorts of places - for example, thinking it would be OK to run over the stupid asshole since they're obviously some other species that is too dumb to protect itself inside a car as do all good folk like me.
That's my interpretation, yes - it's rage bait. It was meant to be upsetting in a vacuous, meritless way (with all due respect to OP).
> Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, ...
I'll hazard that. I'm interpreting the art. I'm open to hearing a different interpretation. I'm open to hearing OP's objections to my interpretation (should they have any). I'm not open to the idea that we simply can't analyze or interpret.
I'm not simply "making something up." I gathered what evidence I could find (eg I read OP's comment history), I thought about the piece, I reasoned my way to a conclusion, and I went through several drafts of my comment to remove any swipes and hone my criticism. Could I be wrong? Sure. Again, I will hazard that. I pondered this already and decided I would rather be wrong than silent.
> ...thinking it would be OK to run over the stupid asshole since they're obviously some other species that is too dumb to protect itself...
Wild, wild leap. This is not remotely the same reasoning I am employing. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not in danger of dehumanizing and murdering someone because I told someone exactly why I didn't like their art. I went out of my way to be respectful. If someone didn't like my work I would want to hear it and I would want it to be expressed respectfully and without malice. So that is what I did.
To be frank, I think you should reread your comment and consider if it is not you that is imputing my motives in a shallow manner.
Read Geddy Lee's "My Effin' Life" autobio...the amount of coke Rush used for quite some time came as a big, big surprise to me! And Alex Lifeson has been a huge stoner since forever.
It's sad how surprised the author and all of us are. Has it really become the norm to create crap that you pay for, that just stops working one day and becomes e-waste? If that ever happens to me, that's a company I'm never giving money to again, ever.
> Is he saying humans have become this way because of the influence of LLMs?
No. The first paragraph explains it quite clearly, IMO: "While some are still discussing why computers will never be able to pass the Turing test, I find myself repeatedly facing the idea that as the models improve and humans don’t, the bar for the test gets raised and eventually humans won’t pass the test themselves."
The point is not that the problems exist more in humans now vs before. It's that they can be observed more significantly in humans than in LLMs (and moreso over time) if one cares to look because LLMs improve and humans do not on sub-evolutionary timescales. And perhaps our patience with them in humans is now diminished because of our experiences with them in LLMs and so people may notice them in humans more than before.
I feel like it's time for me to hang up this career. Prompting is boring, and doing it 5 times at once is just annoying multitasking. I know I'm mostly in it for the money, but at least there used to be a feeling of accomplishment sometimes. Now it's like, whose accomplishment is it?
This is the creator of a product saying how good it is.
If you've worked anywhere professionally you know how every place has its problems, where people just lie constantly about things?
Yeah.
Keep at it and see where things go.
I'm also a dev a bit overwhelmed by all of this talk, at my job I've tried quite a few things and I'm still mostly just using copilot for auto complete and very small tasks that I review throughly, everything else is manually.
If this is indeed the future I also don't wanna be a part of it and will switch to another career, but all this talk seems to come only from the people who actually built these things.
Or try to find a job where you can work how you like to work. With these things it's always "get more done ! MORE ! MORE !". But not all jobs are like this.
Agreed, the author basically says that coding is not required anymore, the job is reviewing code. Do engineers not actually want to build things themselves anymore? Where is the joy and pride in the craft? Are we just supposed to maximize productivity at the expense of our life's experience? Are we any different than machines at that point?
I feel like it’s not talked about enough that the ultimate irony of software engineering is that, as an industry, it’s aiming to make itself obsolete as much as possible. I struggle to think of any other industry that, completely on their own accord, has actively pushed to put themselves out of work to such a degree.
prompting in my experience is boring and/or frustrating. Why anyone would want to do more of that without MASSIVE financial incentives is unthinkable. No composer or writer would ever want to prompt a "work".
reply