At every step, a human had the opportunity to say "no, this is bad". And the fact that they didn't is a vote of quality and reputation.
These days presumably every step can be automated without a human in the loop at all, and it's up to the buyer to discover "no, this is bad", but at that point their money is already spent.
Slightly facetiously, but also completely seriously: I thought the speaker was talking about a "solution" that explicitly frames the students as the "problem" - and the students noticed.
Not sure I agree with some of your points, but also not sure they're downvote-worthy.
As a non-American, the only thing I could probably argue against in good faith with enough context is Point 2.
I took from the 10 stories that everybody knew what was happening, and still nobody did anything (with one exception after-the-fact). The media today is certainly broadcasting what is happening, but I'm not sure it's actually solving the "let's do something about it" problem.
Another opportunity to recommend "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45" by Milton Mayer. The audiobook is great too.
A critical but empathetic look at how fascism rises and spreads through, and alongside, ordinary people in ordinary society. Excellent book, incredibly relevant.
Assembly for the correct architecture is only one part of getting an executable running on a machine.
- Dynamic libraries (e.g. for calling into the kernel, but also user space dynamic libraries) are OS-specific (.so for Linux, .dylib for macOS, .dll for Windows)
- Executable format is OS-specific (ELF for Linux, Mach-O for macOS, PE for Windows)
- Dynamic loading and linkage of both the above are also therefore OS-specific
Who said AI taking your job is "the most likely" case? Even by those extreme estimates of 30% unemployment or whatever - that still leaves ~65% of jobs not lost to AI.
You don't have any idea what job they have, how good they are at it, what their company does, what industry they work in, whether their income is backed by labour, knowledge work, emotional connection, government relationships, capital investments, ...
"Oh well, we were in an anomalous time of social growth, time to go backwards! We won't even need to read or write or think! It's all just too bad, but that's just the way the world works, like it did in 1800." [or pick your date before any current person was alive]
Lots of people have started considering a time of significant "progress" as "an anomaly", as if the world should always just be the way it was in, say, 1800, like that was actually the realistic pinnacle of human society. You also seem to be loosely basing this argument on the availability of "rich nerds", which seems like a bizarre non-sequitur. Computing once didn't exist, and we still valued reading, writing and thinking.
I'm kind of baffled by how regularly I see comments like this. Like, come on. This is basically the AI black pill, no?
That is the question society is currently asking with articles like this one.
Given that (allegedly) "your salary" won't be the answer for a significant chunk of the population soon, and all that money will instead (allegedly) go to the bosses doing the firings, and the AI companies they employ instead.
I wholeheartedly agree with and encourage this kind of academic distinction. However...
Until people with billions of dollars behind them do something with that money to offset the financial hardship that they're knowingly - and gleefully - bringing to others... The distinction has no practical use.
(And before someone says "that's the government's job!", consider how much lobbying money is coming from CEOs and companies who know the domain best and are agitating for better financial and social safeguards for all. None, naturally.)
This analogy only works if the toddler buys their own lego and, while assembling it, the neighbour's toddler - whose parents can't afford to buy lego - chokes to death.
It is possible to build things that don't hurt people.
It is possible to reduce the harms of things that are likely to hurt people.
It is possible to not treat hurt as a foregone conclusion.
It is possible not to use this foregone conclusion to defend strangers who not only create things that actively harm people, but promote this harm as a good thing, without also providing the support to reduce or avoid those harms.
I agree that being further along the Vibe end of the spectrum is the issue. Some of the other ways I use Claude don't have the same problems.
> If the result is something you can't explain than slow down and follow the steps it takes as they are taken.
The problem is I can explain it. But it's rote and not malleable. I didn't do the work to prove it to myself. Its primary form is on the page, not in my head, as it were.
This part, at least, is satire, right? The rest I largely agree with :-)