Creating any kind of wallet in Javascript with its gazillion dependencies is always going to be a roll of the dice

I get some wild ideas out of LLMs too, is that all CEOs are bringing to the table?

Can LLMs execute on their ideas?

It can tell other people what to do, just like CEO. You know LLM is having the vision and employees will execute. Now where is the multibillion package?

Yes, tool calling.

If you can figure out a way to collect and parse information needed to make executive decisions via LLM+tool calls, you would be a billionaire overnight. There’s a reason that it takes a human in these roles and people w/ 0 organizational/executive experience fail to understand just how complex they are.

So how do they expect them to accomplish the even harder task of programming?

Looks like a CEO's job nowadays is to find out what the latest hype train is, and instruct the company to ride it.

Who said either was easy or able to be automated currently? I'm talking about actual users of tools trying to automate, not hype-driven investors or journalists. Both programming and executive decision making are hard, don't make the mistake of thinking your job hard or special while others' are easy, it's the same exact thing artists tried to do when Stable Diffusion came out. Turns out, it's all hard.

Depends what the tool to be called is, not everything has an API, especially anything that relates to other humans.

The UniFi router depends on you already having a UniFi environment. If you do, it's a good option, but the GL would work with any heterogeneous network

Thanks! Thats helpful.

That not-your-money is still going towards rewarding user-hostile decisions

No ethical consumption under capitalism. My phone has minerals in it mined under slave-like conditions.

I'm all for everyone going full Libra - we do it at my co-op - but it makes sense to me that venture funded companies would "play the game" and light investor money on fire because, first, who gives a shit, and second, the investors want you to do that anyway so they can find out as fast as possible if you're a unicorn.

At my co-op, I spend hours writing future proof code and integrating FOSS solutions that I hope will serve us forever. When I'm at a startup, I'm looking for the fastest, maybe cheapest solution. YC gave us 200k in AWS credit? Guess we're on AWS. Another company in the cohort is some LLM IDE ala cursor and gave us a year free? Sure, burn tokens their investors are paying for, more agents for me. Vercel offers us a year of free hosting? Great, I hate nextjs but Claude loves it so fuck it, we deploy a nextjs app on vercel and lock ourselves deep into that ecosystem. Our product may not look like this at all in a year so I may be rewriting it in Vue or whatever when the vercel bills start coming in. Doesn't matter.

>why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting?

Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far

I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.

The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.

If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.

Most dictatorships make no less than a half-hearted attempt to convince the population to support them.

And then they make a point out of terrorizing the people who don't support them. Just so the others have no trouble discerning whether believing them is a good idea or not.

Was this supposed to be a counter-argument?

> they either must be bought at an increasing steep price

Right, what I was getting at is -- that isn't a fatal problem in practice, the price stays affordable.

You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.

What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?

It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.

The highly specialized vehicles of war are not that threatening in a civil conflict. Think about how much tax money it takes to purchase a tank for example. There is maybe 1 tank for every 1000 people, let's say. Yet it only takes a single rocket launcher to destroy a tank.

Look at what happened to the USA in Afganistan recently. What really threatens the chances of popular revolution are the systems of surveillance and inter-dependence that we are building up, and the existence of killer drones that can compete with armed peasants at scale.

Didnt the nation armed with all of this modern tech lose to a guerilla force of ricefarmers armed with sharpened sticks and AKs? Or do you think the Vietnam war would go very different now?

Since no one has bothered to explain how wrong you are… I’ll give you the easy version…

Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews.

The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck.

You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?

Thinking that people won't fall in line is blind idealism. Autonomous weapons of war are already here as it is - formidable individually, worse than a WMD at scale. Day by day, we're getting closer to a militaristic reality where a commanding officer doesn't need a subordinate's turnkey or permission to enact scaled conflict.

Open a browser tab or start a conversation at a bar today, millions of people are in uproar because elected representatives and military officers issued a video that was JUST A REMINDER that military members have a moral and legal duty to reject manifestly illegal orders. Nevermind how they'll inevitably act when the chips are down, and it's now actually time to reject an order from the commander in chief - or someone that answers to him.

This place fetishizes CGP Grey more than anything - watch his dictatorship video about only needing to hold a few "key" (figuratively and literally) officials in place to get your bidding done most efficiently.

I'd say it takes about 1 million people with modern military capability to completely take over the world.

That depends on your definition of "overthrow".

Governments are routinely replaced in western democracies.

No offense, but ask someone in the military how wrong you are.

Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews.

Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel.

In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.

So, you literally read "unlimited supply of military via robots" in the parent comment, and still reply with this? Humanity truly doesn't stand a chance...

Historical leaders didn't have fully automated killer drone factories. (Just an example; a real AGI will probably come up with more effective ideas.)

So it's a mind control problem. We have a good technology for that

"killbots, mow down these stupid protesters"

Antibiotics do one thing, and one thing only - kill bacteria. They don't do anything for viruses, fungal infection, inflammation, chemical irritants or pain relief.

In the case of poison ivy, all antibiotics would do is lower the already slim odds of a secondary infection. They wouldn't prevent the contact dermatitis/inflammation from urishiol.

No. I had broken skin barrier. Pus coming out and dripping. The use of antibiotics was definitely warranted. Again, who do you want to decide whether the use of antibiotics is ok and under what conditions?

Should I be dying before you grant me antibiotics? What kind of nonsense is this?

I personally think you were given antibiotics needlessly just for the sake of it..

But yes, I think you should have developed some kind of infection, and being showing trouble of fighting it off, before you're given antibiotics.

For topical use, maybe an iodine spray would have been better suited. Iodine kills way more pathogens than antibiotics, and it's very good at that, and has no reported cases of resistance development.

With hardware getting more performant and LLMs getting more efficient, what's preventing this outcome from being an inevitability?

Sure, the average person has no interest in self hosting, but businesses will at least run the numbers.

There's no guarantee hardware will ever improve to such an extent that running your own ChatGPT 5 is cheap.

Depends on your supply chain's exposure to foreign markets

It's the establishment putting measures in place to entrench their position with an uncertain future coming towards us, fast. They are setting up systems to prevent revolution.

"This time it's different"

I dunno, people really are living in tent cities and Hondas in Canada. The gains were permanent.