Networking effects are significantly strengthened by necessary user buy in. VC is hard, and every tool demands its users to spend a non-significant amount of time learning it. I would guess the time to move from black magic to understanding most of git is ~100h for most people.
The thing is, to understand which one is actually better, you would have to give the same amount of investment in the second tool, which is not something most people are willing to do if the first tool is "good enough". That's how Python became the default programming language; people don't miss features they do not understand.
A little over a decade ago, with only svn experience, I tried both mercurial and git. There was something about how mercurial handled branches that I found extremely confusing (don't remember what), while git clicked immediately - even without reading the manual.
This is moral relativism at its finest, and just plain wrong. I'm not willing to go so far as to call Anthropic a good player, but they are surprisingly often willing to put their money where their mouth is. Obviously everything can be interpreted as a PR move as well, but we just lack context to know true intentions. Personally I have repeatedly sold being a good org as a PR move, it is the easiest way to do good in a capitalist environment. The success of such a sales pitch significantly relies on the moral values (or lack thereof) of the other decision makers at the company.
With Project Glasswing for example, I'm impressed at how generally well thought out it is, and very much appreciate that they donate a lot of money to OSS. I would have liked them to extend the Project to smaller players as well, but power centralisation is an inherent problem of AI, not something that is unique to Anthropic.
And what is malicious about that ideology? I think EAs tend to like the smell of their farts way too much, but their views on AI safety don't seem so bad. I think their thoughts on hypothetical super intelligence or AGI are too focused on control (alignment) and should also focus on AI welfare, but that's more a point of disagreement that I doubt they'd try to forbid.
Just to be clear, the smartest person is still a minister in Idiocracy, and the whole premise hinges on the idea that the elite still recognizes intelligence as something desirable.
I think they are implying that people with lower intelligence are more likely to be in jail. There's at least three reasons why I would consider this very plausible:
1. Intelligence is associated with higher impulse control.
2. Intelligent criminals are probably less likely to be caught. They might also have a better chance at working to lower their sentences after being caught.
3. It is harder to be successful with a lower IQ (although I would posit it is far from the most important factor), and economic hardship is strongly correlated with crime.
> There are national outlets like ZDF, Tagesschau, Deutschlandradio and regional ones like Norddeutscher Rundfunk and Bayerischer Rundfunk. Each design and present their own programmes.
Well yes, but calling them politically independent is a bit of a stretch. A 2024 study found 52% of board members (Rundfunkrat) have a party membership (~2% of the general population is part of a party). [0]
To take one example you mention, the ZDF-Fernsehrat is dominated by party members (33/60).Notably only by the conservative party (CDU/CSU) and the SocDems (SPD), with 2 green members and 1 member of the SSW. Neither the left party, nor the far right AfD have any representation, despite accounting for roughly 30% of the national vote. Religious communities have signifigantly more representation (9), than the scientific community (0). [1]
Public media was always a tool to help create and maintain a societal overton window of shared truth and identity, and as such very helpful in keeping Germany united and democratic. There was however also always clearly immoral and untrue directions taken for ideological reasons or political convenience, for example the support of Apartheid South Africa til its fall, and the recent biased coverage of Israel. Many other topics as well, like immigration, covid and the war in Russia, are presented in a way that does not align with significant amounts of the german population: We are currently witnessing this overton window breaking apart completely, in other words, German public media has failed in its primary purpose.
Some interesting conversation one can have with coworkers specifically:
1. How should code review and responsibility for code be updated to a) increase velocity, b) keep quality and c) keep reviewers from burnout. There are plenty scenarios in which vibe coding a component in an afternoon is the correct choice, even if it is buggy, insecure, and no one really understands it.
2. Which parts of the codebase work well with code assistants, which don't? Why? What could be changed to make it easier? In my experience, Claude Code sometimes loses its mind on infra topics. It is also not very good at complex, interconnected services (humans aren't either).
3. Which tasks could be offloaded to agents to save everyone time and sanity? - Creatig Jira Tickets from meeting transcripts is an obvious one, collecting and curating bug reports another one.
4. How should we design systems to better work for coding agents? Does it influence our tech choices? Should it influence them?
5. Is AI a net positive or negative for security?
And so much more. The last topic in particular is incredibly important, and things are developing so fast that you can probably have a new conversation on it every two weeks.
Mathematics is a language. Everything we can express mathematically, we can also express in natural language. The real interesting, underlying question is: Is there anything worth knowing that cannot be expressed by language? - That's the theoretical boundary of LLM capability.
> People will go out of their way to help you, and to support you. Over time this could very well boost your ego to also become more confident and decisive.
This was my first thought about why the move to online works for men but not women. When I was attractive, people intuitively thought I was competent as well. I could speak with authority on topics not knowing more than the average and people would believe me.
Fo women this might sometimes even be the other way around - more beauty is associated with less intelligence.
The thing is, to understand which one is actually better, you would have to give the same amount of investment in the second tool, which is not something most people are willing to do if the first tool is "good enough". That's how Python became the default programming language; people don't miss features they do not understand.
reply