Reminds me of Michelson's (of Michelson-Morley) famous statement in 1900 that all of physics had essentially already been discovered, so the only remaining work was to apply what was known to new experiments. Similar statements were made about chemistry after Mendeleev and history after the cold war.

I didn't claim you wouldn't discover things in pure math that would decades later turn out to be useful in other fields. I'm sure you would. My claim was that the ROI is lower compared to applied math, which matters when funding is limited.

There's deprivation of future value and deprivation of present value. The owner can continue to sell a digital apple, but it's not clear to me that "theft" inherently deprives the owner of future value. For example, I could steal your car for a night of joyriding and return it unharmed the next day. You might reasonably say that a theft occurred even though you retain the car afterwards. Note that I'm aware this example isn't perfectly analogous to digital goods.

Theres neither with piracy.

Like you have to assume that the lack of the piracy would lead to an actual sale. Which isnt the case at all.

You only have to assume that some instances of piracy would have led to an actual sale and adjust the lost present value to p*price on average.

To add to this in some other direction, I have often thought that the people who have been "stolen" from... should just "get even" by making use of the LLM for their own profit in some way

They helped build an incredible tool that they should benefit from, so go ahead and reap the benefits, right?

What do you do for a living?

Is that a serious question? Many people would consider Potala palace, the Milan Duomo, Neuschwanstein, etc more beautiful than anything designed by Zaha Hadid and Gehry. Myself included, even as someone who likes their work. Limiting ourselves only to the category of modern event centers, I'd still put the Harbin Grand Theater ahead of it.

Or have a cut in the outer ring with an insert filling the gap. A partial ring is easiy to bend outwards, but difficult to bend inwards.

There's a fair bit of overlap and people who work in both, but yes, they're distinct specialties. I wouldn't say upset though, except in the sense that grocery store clerks are upset by "if it doesn't scan it's free" jokes.

I've been developing a suspicion that many people simply aren't looking at what their agents produce and can't speak to the quality of it in a fully informed way.

For context, I've set up harnesses with recursive automated review loops, spec driven development, explicit lists, better models, better harnesses, formal methods tooling, etc. All of it helps, but they don't eliminate output issues. Those become very apparent when I go through the slow, manual work of deeply comprehending / validating LLM code.

And that leads me to one of three conclusions. Either my standards are achievable only by hyperintelligent programming gods, I have a skill issue using LLMs, or others aren't applying the same level of attention.

The first is obviously untrue. I meet my own standards and I'm an idiot. The second seems unlikely because I can see my competent coworkers and well-regarded people in the community discussing the same issues. So that leaves the third.

If you assume that programmers’ skills follows a bell curve, the typical output will not be better than the average. And that leads directly into your third conclusion: average programmers just do not put in the effort. That’s literally part of what makes them average.

Unfortunately most people just treat it as a job. And indeed, it is a job for most people. Not all farmers love gardening and all in their free time. It's just a livelihood. For me I like programming but honestly for my job I can't be assed to do it by hand anymore. It looks good enough, screw it, it's not like they pay me extra to produce handwritten code. When the whole org is pushing down this one path you know it's time to dgaf

It's not known for certain how it was done and we've never found a sketch as far as I know, but some form of master plan is generally suspected for figure mosaics. The customers purchasing the mosaics to be constructed would have selected the images and motifs depicted beforehand and would have lacked the skills of the artists to imagine them in tile. Some of the fancier mosaics also involved custom tiles that had to be manufactured beforehand, and knowing how many are required is valuable.

It seems likely that some simpler mosaics and patterns were done straight from the artist's mind though.

It's the problem of the banality of evil. Stopping someone from dramatically pressing a big red button doesn't solve humanity's largest problems because that's not what caused them. We need to stop millions "boring" actions done by systems blindly following instructions without regard for the consequences.

If the buttons are incompatible with the absence of the feature, I'd expect the buttons not to exist when the feature is disabled. Anything else seems like a straight up footgun. I guess it'd also be acceptable to pop up a scary warning box asking "are you sure?"

> If the buttons are incompatible with the absence of the feature, I'd expect the buttons not to exist when the feature is disabled. Anything else seems like a straight up footgun.

It's called a "dark pattern." They want you to shoot yourself in the foot, so they'll do their best to aim your gun at your foot and put your finger on the trigger. And then when you do, because you don't have perfect understanding or execution, they'll say "your fault!"

You could have looked up the collisions instead of making vague accusations of bad faith. In one, a Tesla going 98MPH collided with a line of vehicles (including a Waymo) stopped at a light. In the other, a motorcyclist hit a Waymo from behind and fell off their bike, where they were struck and killed by another vehicle (that fled).

I am not the one saying "fault doesn't matter as fault is not included in the other stat either".

And yes, I'm aware of the fault of the incidents.