• 1 Post
  • 104 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 20th, 2025

help-circle





  • 100%

    There’s definitely a ceo-driven tendency to insert AI anywhere and everywhere whether or not it actually is a reasonable application. What I’m saying is that there are also some reasonable applications. When people focus entirely on “AI useless!”, they’re fooling themselves every bit as much as the people who think it’s suitable for every possible application. Their arguments are just as empty and vibes-based.




  • Well, it has initial utility with a bad trade-off and the utility dereases as addiction sets in. There’s a point at which smoking a cigarette is reducing stress, but eventually it increases the baseline stress before having a cigarette to the point that it’s a net loss. Eventually it’s not smoking reducing stress from other sources, it’s pushing back against the mountain of stress of addiction.

    If it didn’t initially reduce stress in the first phase, you wouldn’t do it enough to get to addiction.

    Personally, one of the things I found most useful for quitting was the idea that smoking another cigarette would never fix the desire to smoke, only not smoking could do that.


  • They can use it to do a lot of things. AI is far from perfect and makes all sorts of weird mistakes, but so do people. Arguably there’s substantially more value in training inexperienced humans to get better in their fields than in settling for AI as a cheap alternative that starts with a maybe slightly higher or similar but cheaper baseline, but that doesn’t eliminate all value they create. You can make arguments about the long term benefits socially or for individual organizations that leverage AI, but spend a couple hours playing with Claude and it becomes extremely evident that they’re not anything resembling useless.

    Even if we completely throw chat bots out the window, there are some instances of general utility for thinking models. This comic is making a moral argument that’s more compelling, but arguing that they’re actually totally useless doesn’t really reflect reality



  • Well, if every state had the same laws we wouldn’t have a fallback position. We thankfully have the option of pushing to change federal law when the opportunity arises, but as we’ve seen since the election there’s a degree of flimsiness there. Having strong state-level legislation in places where it isn’t too controversial preserves better policy through bad administrations. We can continue to serve as an example and build support, and it gives people somewhere to go if they need to get out of their own states.

    Without more atomic and variable state laws, it would be much harder to make real progress at a national level. The EU’s model of smaller nations banding together lends itself to a similar strategy. It means you can build consensus at the local level, show that what you want works, and build out from there.

    I’d love to see more of the policies we have locally applied to a national level, but they certainly wouldn’t get there if we didn’t have a more isolated arena in which to develop them. Conservatives can take advantage of localized political development too, but they lack the benefit of not being evil.