The LLMs have reached a plateau. Successive generations will be marginally better.

We're watching innovation move into the use and application of LLMs.

Innovation and better application of a relatively fixed amount of intelligence got us from wood spears to the moon.

So even if the plateau is real (which I doubt given the pace of new releases and things like AlphaEvolve) and we'd only expect small fundamental improvements some "better applications" could still mean a lot of untapped potential.

Because you haven't extrapolated from Python's niche. Those domains are derived from Python's accessibility. Python might be the most accessible big boy language.

I'm currently learning Python for my ML/Tensorflow online coirses. I thought bc I know C++ it'd be super easy but theres a lot of differences between them. Turns out an "easier" big boy language still has a bit of a learning curve

Python: dynamically typed, structurally typed, garbage collected, exceptions C++: statically typed, nominally typed, manual memory management, exceptions

It's a big jump from C++ to Python. If you want a midway, use Go.

Edgy! No one has ever considered the mortality of their children ever, or contemplated the difference between death before and after the realization of potential. Wow!

Genuinely don't know why this is edgy. I was trying to understand his logic

Having a child predecease you is one of the worst things that can happen to a person in general. This is a common sentiment in humans. The strange thing is that you mentioned you're trying to follow "logic." This is not logic. These are emotions.

I understand this. My question arose from the fact that it seems like he only cares about the child dying before him, not the child's death overall. It was

> the idea of being told my 1 week old baby is going to die

not

> the idea of my child dying

It’s less of

> my baby is going to die, woe is me

and more of

> have I failed my baby so much as a parent that he won’t even grow to adulthood (much less have a wonderful, happy life)

It’s not exactly a rational feeling; it’s not like this baby was going to die through lack of parental effort or care or anything else that the parents have any real control over, so it’s not like they could have done anything differently.

Nonetheless, it can make you feel like an utter failure of a parent. To some people (I admit, not everybody), that is absolutely crushing.

>It’s not exactly a rational feeling

It only looks irrational if you don't understand what people and feelings are.

"I am simply a machine. I do not experience death as humans do. It is just a cessation of function." - Data in Star Trek The Next Generation,

I wonder which non-profit will be looted next.

>Lack of a mobile app.

FFS, do you want your dishwasher tethered to the cloud too?

False equivalence, but yes, I do.

No, I [correctly] extrapolated with high confidence.

Skill issue. 100k miles on bench seats in full size sedans to full size pickups, including mountain roads, and nary a problem.

Literally survivor bias.

So you agree: skill issue.

How long have you been holding that one?

It's only been a recent thing, noticeably more frequent the last couple of years.

Before that I've not had to intervene at all, as far as I can remember.

There aren't that many courts where cars park facing them, but my home courts are one of them ;)

>money is fungible

And then you contradicted yourself 2 phrases over.

Tax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids instead of mustangs.

PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical.

> regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical

Turns out you are wrong.

Life-style should never be subsidized. God forbid that someone feels the repercussions of their life-style, which is the only feedback mechanism that will ever cause change.

My moral system will stop global warming and save the planet. Your moral system will destroy the planet and kill billions. Everyone needs to be responsible, including the poor. Tough.

You don’t know anything about my moral system. I know that you declared all regressive use taxes in all cases as morally right.

But a system that makes it so you must drive an ICE vehicle to participate in the economy, makes the price of food directly indexed to gasoline costs and then provides tax breaks to the rich who can afford to buy new electric vehicles while increasing the taxes on the poor who can’t is not 100% morally right.

There are lots of ways to introduce a gas tax that are ethically sound but they aren’t simple and the idea that _any_ use tax is morally just is idiotic.

>But a system that makes it so you must drive an ICE vehicle to participate in the economy

You're literally subsidizing this system by preventing use taxes on gasoline.

>provides tax breaks to the rich

42% of people pay no income tax, and 80% pay net zero or less. Poor people care how benefits are apportioned amongst the poor, not how taxes are apportioned amongst the rich.

>You don’t know anything about my moral system.

I know enough: you hate use taxes, because they are regressive (when the metric is % of income, not when it is magnitude).

But use taxes, like any price, provide critical feedback to the consumer to avoid failure modes like the tragedy of the commons.

In this particular case that feedback acts as a restoring force against the literal destruction of the planet's habitability. My moral system doesn't preclude use taxes on general principle, but your moral system does. Ergo, I'm offering a moral system that will save the planet, innumerable ecosystems, and possibly the human species, but you're offering a moral system that lets us feel warm and fuzzy, emphasis on warm.

>I know that you declared all regressive use taxes in all cases as morally right.

What an odd interpretation. I was clearly referring specifically to the regressive aspect of use taxes, not declaring the holiness of every particular use tax conceivable, historical, and existing.

A: "Breathing is 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So you want everyone to smoke crack!"

A: "Income taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So we should tax 120% of income!"

Of all the ways you could have interpreted my statement you chose the most absurd.

> you hate use taxes, because they are regressive

I think a gas use tax makes a ton of sense and is likely a requirement to get us off ice engines which is imperative.

I don’t think they are ‘simple’ as the op said because to make them both just and politically feasible they need to come with rebates and straight cash payouts. The negotiation of which is as complex as any other form of taxation.

But go ahead and keep believing it’s _me_ who did the absurd reading of comments if it keeps you going.

You want a gas tax, and then you want to refund the tax to the poor. That's a no-op with extra steps.

If you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution.

You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency? It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the planet.

What isn’t clear about the fact that increasing commuting costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse outcome?

Because you're only considering first-order effects. Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open. People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting every nearby development.