I feel exactly the same way about this "I'm using AI as a cognitive amplifier. I'm learning at a much faster rate than I would without AI."

I just don't know how much is actually being replaced though. I think of corporate jobs I have done in that past. I can't think of anything I have ever been paid to do that would be replaced by a language model. It was either something that could have been automated without a language model but was not for various reasons or the output would just be amplified by a language model. In some cases my work would have been enormously amplified and better but not "automated".

For some reason we don't seem to like this idea of a cybernetic relationship with a machine that benefits the human even though that is exactly what we have been doing for at least a 150 years. Maybe it is something in our brains that can't turn off a type of predator/prey model. Then on top of that is the mass appeal of this infantile and collectivist idea that AI will do all the work while we collect our UBI trust fund allowance from artificial daddy.

I can feel this already with my own use of language models.

All the questions I had before language models, I have answered with language models.

That doesn't mean I have no more questions though. Answering those questions opened up 10X more questions I have now.

In general, everyone knows that answering scientific questions leads to new and more questions. It is the exact same process in the economy. There is a collectivist sentiment though in society and the economy that wants to pretend this isn't true. That the economic questions can be "solved", the spoils divided up and we live happily ever after in some kind of equilibrium.

As far as new jobs, they are here now but they surely sound as ridiculous to think about as being a professional youtuber in 2005. Or I think of the person making a geocities website in 1997 vs a front end developer. There is no date that a front end developer emerges from the html code monkey. It is a slow and organic process that is hard to game.

> As far as new jobs, they are here now but they surely sound as ridiculous to think about as being a professional youtuber in 2005

How many people can make an actual living out of Youtube? Surely they exist but to reliably live off it for decades (not just 1-2 years of temporary fame - which is also very hard to come by) I'd say fewer than one in ten thousand people will make it. I can't call "Youtuber" a career path with that kind of success rates anymore than I can call being an actor in Hollywood a career path.

I love data visualization but it very much reminds me of shred guitar playing, something I also use to very much love.

What non-guitar players are complaining about the lack of innovation in shred guitar playing? It is just not something that non-guitar players really care much about. Good shred vs bad shred is all going to sound the same to the non-guitarist anyway.

I notice I have been using the Google AI summary more and more for quick things.

I had subscribed to Perplexity for a month to use their deep research. I think it ran out earlier this week but I am really missing it Saturday morning here.

That thing is awesome. Sonnet 3.7 is more in the middle of this to me. It can help me understand all the things I found from my deep research requests.

I am surprised the hype is not more for Sonnet 3.7 honestly.

Prompting is not a myth. The words of the prompt matter huge.

The problem with this prompt to me is not that it is not in a full sentence but that it isn't exact enough.

Probabilistically, "rust" is not about the programming language but the corrosion of metal. Then arrow.

Give the model basically nothing to work with then complain it doesn't do exactly what you want. Good luck with that.

I always thought the same until I got one.

It is a really good product.

It especially stands out if on a diet and going to eat a lot of chicken breast.

Steak I wouldn't cook in it but it makes great chicken. Especially on a diet that you aren't going to add much else calorie wise with how you cook it.

It is also a problem that the projects are not realistic.

What are you going to rebuild a banking mainframe system from the 1970s at home in your bedroom for fun?

I don't think it matters anyway. A 14yo thinking strategically like this will figure things out soon enough.

Being that young it would probably be best to not listen to what anyone else tells you though. Follow what you think is right and if it doesn't work out, learn from it. The whole idea could be explored and still not be old enough to drive.

No, you just live in a bubble of smart and really driven people.

The vast majority of people's passions are partying, sex, alcohol/drugs, watching sports, gossiping, generally wasting time. Things that mostly

This whole line of thought to me is embarrassingly clueless, naive and basically childish.

It is just mind blowing to me how smart people can't see what a bubble they live in.

I almost suspect, the higher a person's IQ, the more susceptible they are to living in a bubble that basically has nothing to do with the majority of people with an IQ of 100.

nah.

China built several -- several, like 8+ -- landing ships designed to support an amphibious assault. if soft power was their goal and primary method they wouldn't have spent the resources.

while they may not ever do it, a very direct, very violent invasion is absolutely on the table. Taiwan may only even be a secondary objective, since #1 would be sinking the US Navy and shifting the hegemonic balance; they'll get to Taiwan when they can after that.

Having a large military capability and not using it is ... Soft power? Is that fair?

Soft power is economic and cultural levers. Hardware is actual military power.

One term that's specific to this concept of wielding a real but unused military capability is "fleet in being" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

what you said is how China planed before 2019, reality's development makes it impossible to act as previously planned, now, there's 0 chance that the CCP can take back Taiwan without bombs

however, it really depends on the definitions of 'reclaim' and 'win'

China's purpose is not only to take the land, but also to 'reunite' taiwanese people, so you're right about they are going to need to use soft power to achieve this, so yes, it will not be like what the US did to Hawaii and Iraq

btw, I briefly looked through the book you mentioned and was surprised to find that, compared to other Westerners, the author has a very good understanding of China's war history and philosophy. Although it is somewhat one-sided, Chinese military philosophy is very different before and after the Han Dynasty

The soft power should read here as Uyghur concentration camps.

you are right

this is the real soft power

this is the power makes you believe there're genocide in xinjiang without any solid evidence

this is the power makes every discussion about gaza were flagged here

the real power, it's soft, but it's so strong

wonderful, isn't it?

100 RMB army will be the first to be turned into landfill when China gets a bit more ambitious. Much like what is currently happening to their North Korean counterparts in the north of my country.

funny, because it seems like the president of south korea is more dangerous than DPRK to the country...

It's pretty funny that Westerners are still going on about this largely invented issue after underwriting a brutal genocide in Gaza for almost 18 months. Won't someone please think of the oppressed Muslims!

This seems like quintessential whataboutism. I think expanding on how that concern is "largely invented" would serve your point better. I, at least, would be interested.

It shows up so naturally that one may think it is not whataboutism at work, even though the reasoning is often not well argued. We could choose to see it not as a moral judgement, but as questioning the justification of efforts pushing for conflicts with China.