One requirement for a programming language to be “good” is that doing this, with sufficient specificity to get all the behavior you want, will be more verbose than the code itself.
“Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
In the same way that people struggle to comprehend exponential growth, they seem to also struggle to comprehend the cost of inaction, compounded over time.
Imagine if the steam engine had not been allowed by regulators during the time of the Industrial Revolution.
If that happened and we were all still working on farms today, I bet half the people would be telling us how much safer the government was making us with all its regulations. In blissful ignorance.
Indeed. Thank you for writing this and speaking up in public.
Many of the comments here that essentially reply to your article by saying “regulation is good, stop criticizing it”, are deeply depressing. That is a regulatory mind virus that must be destroyed before it kills us.
Does anyone know why, anecdotally, it seems like the slowness of type inference is more of a pain point in Swift than in Ocaml, Rescript, Purescript, Haskell, etc?
I wonder how much of a perf hit a normal multithreaded Unix application would take because of this model.
Are there any data points around the multi-threading perf here?
It seems like if we want an answer to the question of “What impact will a human-like AI have on the economy?” then a relevant thing to look at would be historical times and places where slavery was prevalent.
If we get to a point where the average person can spend a year’s salary to buy a human-like robot to work for them, well, that has been the case in many times and places before (it just wasn’t a robot).
How many times will labs repeat the same absurd propaganda?