I'll add an expansion here. It's more useful to you locally, as you have excess compute that's generally wasted. If you're serving multiple user and trying to max output, you might cost some in this case
I do think that this is natural. When you use LLM coding tools, you're becoming a lot more like an architect/staff/manager, rather than the direct coder. You're setting out the spec, coming up with the design, and coming up with the high level structure of the project.
However, this comes at the cost of losing track of the minute details of the implementation because you didn't write it yourself. I find it a bit analogous to code I've reviewed vs code I've written.
However, I've found using AI for code structure summary and questioning tends to be a good way to get around it. I might forget faster, but I also pick it up faster.
Sure, then they can go demand said standards for social media platforms including expected amount per N post, just as car companies are not expected to have car fatality rates be 0.
The fact is that simple scale means that there will always be something, no matter how abhorrent. Small scale doesn't change this, it just concentrates it.
For a community full of engineers, I'm always surprised that people always take absolutionist views on minor technical decisions, rather than thinking of the tradeoffs made that got there.
Not the OP, but my interpretation here is that if you model the replies as some point in a vector space, assuming points from a given domain cluster close to each other, replies that span two domains need to "tunnel" between these two spaces.
I think what my ideal is basically DnD, but with an AI DM.
This is something that I'm hoping the current LLM and future AI work eventually get us to. If we can get persistent context and memory, or at least a simulacrum of that, we could get to truly dynamic reactive worlds
I'd say that the internet has also strongly lowered the barriers to external propaganda and influence, which is another major factor here. When you've got a huge swarm of "people" with no stake, or even a negative stake in your country, that's a naturally destabilizing factor
You mean like the countless western "safety", copyright and "PC" changes that've come through?
I'm no fan of the CCP, but it's not as though the US isn't hamstringing it's own AI tech in a different direction. That area is something that china can exploit by simply ignoring the burden of US media copyright
Just a note, chatGPT does retain a persistent memory of conversations. In the settings menu, there's a section that allows you to tweak/clear this persistent memory
I deliberately chose the FDA here specifically because of this. The problem here is that on a societal level, we have to be willing to tolerate some risk. If a drug could have saved many, but is rejected because of occasional complications, that sounds like a poor cost benefit analysis.
Feels like this is the fundamental flaw with a lot of things not just in the private sector, but the public one too.
Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare.
It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The question then becomes how do you get people (and orgs by extension), to better handle risk, rather than opting for the safe option at every turn?
I think you're going to realize that as time passes and this becomes more normalized, your opinion is going to become the minority. That might be a good thing, or maybe not.
Sure, it's been done before, but looking at the end result though, I'm not sure if that's a strong argument for whether it should be done again.
Look at the end state of the US auto industry. It's uncompetitive in basically every part of the world and thus basically irrelevant, except in the US. Unless somehow something different is going to happen here, this could end up with Intel continuing to perform poorly, negating the point of keeping it alive to begin with.
The big difference is that chess is a game/sport, and those are about competition between humans. It's a deliberately restricted ruleset to encourage such, thus the (imperfect) banning of assistance.
The same doesn't really apply to everything outside of that.
Still, you'd think that status would still remain, it's not like the invention of the car removed the glory of being the world's fastest sprinter.
And this carries on for all the other sources of injury and other "bad" things. Provided, of course, the cause it's explicit and direct.