I think the problem is that, this is practically speaking impossible adjacent. I think generally speaking writing is way easier than editing, especially at scale. This isn’t binary or all or nothing, it’s not like “you can never use AI”. But I think we need to go back to augmentation over generation.

A person produces the content and AI removes barriers, and contextually accelerates the process keeping you in a flow state, rather than AI generates human edits.

I feel like this is where AI like -

Are we thinking about how we’re using it, or???

It seems like; there’s two kinds of data that might go into this, boilerplate and subjective information. Subjective information should be input by the police, because I would assert the specific wording matters. It matters that the words used to describe what the policeman saw comes out of the policeman’s brain. If it’s boilerplate, I’d AI really more reliable then copy-paste?

Everything is going according to plan.

> is the government taking a steak in AI likely to improve people’s opinion of AI?

Is this a claimed aim of the effort?

According to the article(stake though, not steak)

Seems to me that state sponsorship of ai platforms would violate separation of church and state given looney transhumanist ai fanfic is entirely unsupported by empiricism or mathematics. Again can anybody name an economcially useful technology an LLM invented? Maybe we can't because it is like asking for what a search engine invented. Adaptive general intelligence does not exist today and is provably unattainable by fixed weight tranformers interpolating over the human corpus. however rent seeking with their unproductive but persuasive technology is a great temporary survival strategy for OpenAI et al given they can't justify themselves in a competitive marketplace at the cost of us all. imagine if in 2000 the federal gov back-stopped pets.com because ecommerce was deemed in the national interest. lol.

If I were China or Russia I would want the US to invest deeply in the AI boondogle meanwhile I make or mine the things that actually matter in the world. Its like the US vs USSR defense spending war in reverse. if rivals can dupe the US into wasting money on useless "ai" while they build cheap energy or make physical products.

Can you name the reasons you hate it for? Genuine question

Specifically I think the risk profile these companies have decided to take on is such that the government is basically investing to mitigate bad decision making. These are basically most of the biggest companies in the US right now. Also, I think Trump has shown that the primary criteria for this is not merit but graft.

If these companies were in an earlier more precarious part of their research cycle, and if like multiple of his advisors and his VP weren’t industry insiders or paid by such I might be more in favor. But this is basically regulatory capture in steroids.

The economy is centralized in the magnificent ten enough.

Someone had a quote that was basically like, can we just treat AI like normal technology. And not god in a box or the end all be all of everything.

I definitely look more like a skeptic than an enthusiast, but I use AI at least four hours a day. Im all in, but for like demonstrable processes and gains not just like everyone vibe code themselves to Nirvana.

I've been using it about 8 hours a day. That's because for every two minutes of working with it I need to wait about a minute for it to give something back.

You’re implying there’s no distinction between addiction and use. And I think you’re excessive cynicism is just wrong in practical ways,

I always buy my nails from Home Depot. I’m not addicted to nails. Home Depot does not reasonably think they can get me addicted to nails.

> I always buy my nails from Home Depot.

It's probably not the nails, but there's a reason people always stick with a particular hardware store.

(Also, I know that's a flip example, but there are absolutely brands of nails and screws I always get).

But do you go out and buy nails and screws just for fun when you’re not working on a hardware project? Do you think Home Depot’s marketing suggests you should be building day in and day out? That the average person should have five projects going at the same time and compulsively start a new project even when they’re not feeling like it?

Addiction is a real thing with a real definition and real consequences and it’s not the same as love or admiration or even fanaticism.

If you look up the medical definition of addiction I think you'll be surprised to see that in order for it to be considered a disorder the key is that is has to be past the point of self-abuse or adverse consequences.

You can say something is "addictive" without implying it's a substance abuse disorder.

When people at Microsoft say the goal of AI is to be addictive, they're clearly implying that they want their product to be habit forming in the same way that video games or food delivery is. And it's silly to imply Microsoft is trying to create physiological dependence.

> The deeper issue is tacit knowledge. Most of what a skilled engineer knows is not something they can articulate on demand.

Why is it that everyone says that soft skills can be more important than hard skills, that engineers talk to people they don’t sit in rooms turning requirements into code, but then, it seems like one of the criticisms about the interview process is “well, engineers can come up with good solutions when alone in a room”

That’s not the job. Articulating technical details when in conversation with your colleagues is.

Articulation is not the issue; the reasoning and consideration process is.

If you step back a bit from the words on that page and squint, what you might see is something like "Most of what a skilled engineer does is recognize, sense problems, and feel things that may not be obvious."

The discovery of the right path forward for the goals of the organization comes after that and takes time and planning.

> "Most of what a skilled engineer does is recognize, sense problems, and feel things that may not be obvious."

This is a great way of putting it, love it.

At the end of the day, that's it. A lot of people are very good at executing the tasks, delivering what needs to be delivered.

But the special people are the ones who maintain a constant sense of awareness of what might be off and digging deep into it.

One returns in a week with a fully articulated solution, not at point blank. Famously, Archimedes came up with his in the bathtub.

Tacit knowledge is not soft skill, there's quite a comprehensive field of neuroscience research around it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge

It totally is the job. What kind of unreasonable process you have that people dont have time to think?

First you think, then you think about how to say it, then you talk with others. Then you think again and maybe talk again.

But, it is not like we were designing everything in quick on the spot debates without research.

> What kind of unreasonable process you have that people dont have time to think?

AI is making this much worse. Executives expect you to be managing a herd of AI agents working on a dozen things at once, 24/7.

Good luck trying to find time to think. This will backfire.

eh, my take is that you’re kind of going off in a specific direction when reality is actually behind you little here.

i cannot explain why it’s not possible for us to fling the flange if i don’t understand how both the flange flanges and the fling flings.

being able to talk about it is a downstream effect of knowing about it.

This reads like RIP Budweiser, only Johnny Walker Blue from now on. Of course a week of structured side by side time is better than a few hours. Also - what the hell is wrong with a system design question?

Yes, a process that is 10x as expensive may be 10x better.

And reading the original Steve Yegge post - he seems to recommend a sort of social reputation score. Which means that your interview failures can now follow you?

1. I think if you want kids to grow up with a healthy respect for capitalism, you have to start with the oligarchy. Capitalism without regulation that enforces a healthy playing field is something else.

One thing I realized is that - I think most people seem to grow up with what is a more emotional than purely rational passionate support of either capitalism or socialism. And I realized, maybe I'm the only American whose not entirely sure where on the socialism - capitalism spectrum they are.

I'm starting to lean into something similar - While I understand the danger of nostalgia, and I don't think you can go back. The great thing about living in the current time should be that like, eveything is available. There are people who still choose to be blacksmiths in 2026. My kids and I have been watching the 70s television series "Land of the Lost" and the 70s had some really bonkers childrens programming.

In a weird way, I think the thing the tech companies fear more than abstenance - which kids may ultimately rebel from - is kids who grow up to use these technologies in a healthy way. Kids who grow up without FOMO.