> What’s left is brain rot and its addicts.

and bots

2008 was the big one, but i really think the ball started rolling after 9/11...

Really though it all started with the federalist papers.

As this article shows, it already started in the chimp-human common ancestor.

  > But it seems to me the lesson from this paper is that this (isolating us in separate groups) would make the split complete enough that we would decisively start butchering each other.

of course, and historically we can see that from the past 300 years leading up to ww1 and ww2; every empire was in it for themselves and very nationalistic, mercantilism ruled the day, and lots of crazy theories such as phrenology and eugenics started to appear leading to all kinds of atrocities...

  > Not one thing and trying to force-fit it.

agree, but then they become glorified ide plugins and can't justify the huge valuations that a magic box that does and knows everything can justify...

  > cow milking tech

i mean, in the end, cow-milking is the name of the game isnt it?

Yes if it played that game at the start.

That's the name of a different game.

OpenAI played the charity, coupled with a powerful altruistic card.

It didn't say: we believe a more effective for-profit business shall start as a non-profit in this field, because it would yield innovation which we can then skim money off down the road. That would have been transparent.

Not saying it was the intention at the start. But they flipped the game at some point. Let's play Chess, it's a better game. Oh I decided we are now playing Checkers, sorry, I won.

  > But they flipped the game at some point.

yes, agree.

i guess my (too nuance maybe) point was: the system we live in is like water; the urge to swim with the big fish is overwhelming... it was gonna happen eventually at the level they are playing at.

  > uses human feedback and comments to correct the output

tbf, lots of saas have a similar attitude with things like "give us feedback" on their pages; like i'm paying you money to figure this stuff out so why are you asking me if its good or not? with more and more "vibing" i feel this kind of attitude is going to infect everything at some point...

  > often tries to change behavior

yes, and (in my experience) at the same time re-write the unit tests that are supposed to guarantee behavior doesn't change...

i once scolded an ai for being too late when i figured out an issue before it could come back with an answer: it made an excuse that it took too long to start up, lol

i would guess telling it to "hurry up" would produce even worse code than already does without hand-holding or maybe it would make an excuse again...

  > Why format with an LLM each time, when you can use the LLM once to write the formatter?

the right way to use an llm imo (and same for end-user features as well)... no need to waste tokens and wait time on something that can be done at a fraction of the cost and time (and be deterministic on top of that)

  > What's the difference between a technocrat and a bishop in this case?

science (i say this with irony)