Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | _bypa's commentslogin

For the people peddling LLMs this is actually good news:

1. Force AI down everyone's throats claiming it's going to boost productivity

2. See people lose valuable skills because they rely too much on AI

3. Peddle more AI to make up for the lack of skills in professionals


It's not good news if the AI companies have to raise their prices 10x to deliver the same service while paying down the crippling debt they've incurred getting everyone hooked on AI.

If my mechanic started charging 10x more to fix my car, I'd learn to fix my car.


The main skill you need to reach that level is the one they always keep practicing: shmoozing. Thinking is not required as an executive, so you cannot lose what you never had.

And being born wealthy requires zero skill or practice.


This seems to assume that a skill is only important if you need it for your job.

If that is the case, then wouldn't this whole thing be a non-issue? We lose all the skills we used to have, but we don't need them because our entire job now is interacting with AI, and that skill we will continue to develop because it is what we do all day.

I don't know if I fully agree with that. Some skills are important even if you don't need them for your day job.



So you eat your usage quota twice as fast or pay for API requests twice as much.


Isn't that kind of like a cache for agents across vendors and versions?


There will be an agent that closes questions for being slightly off-topic soon if there isn't already.


Up until I read "AI servers" I honestly thought the headline would say "workers," which triggered a secondary thought: "At least it's better treatment than Amazon warehouse workers..."


"Proffer a strongly worded capitulation" was probably too much for publication.


Or scientists know how to count and see that one number is larger than another; and understand that that's an important factor in many political systems.


interesting how that logic only applies about half the time.


It doesn't. The republicans are able to stop things a lot of the time because Democrats don't have a strong majority in either house. They can barely scrape together a 50% plus 1 vote by bringing in people who are "Democrat" but for example refuse to allow public option healthcare or shut down of coal plants.

Republicans have voters that understand your guy has to be in the seat before you want something to happen. They correctly understand that if you just vote for more guys, you get more of what you want to happen, and correctly identify that the solution to not getting what you want is to get more seats in the next election.

I can never understand the shocking lack of civics education from people who get upset at democrats for not having power when the system describes in plain language that you need numbers for the power.

When Mitch McConnell prevented the vote to appoint a new supreme court justice, it was because he had that power as senate majority leader. If Democrats had a senate majority at that time, he could not have prevented the vote.


[flagged]


The republicans can have 1 senator in the senate and they somehow shuck and jive to get their way. They never fucking lose in implementing their outright evil. Break some rules, use strategy, set up some game pieces. Do something, anything. The democrats couldn’t even get a Supreme Court justice seated with 6 months to go for the next election.


The last time Democrats had a full majority they passed the most consequential climate legislation ever. The time before that, health care reform. Republicans couldn’t do anything to stop it. It’s how the system works. It’s not some movie script.


Pretty tepid health care reform, pretty tepid climate change legislation. These things are described as hard fought victories, and "the biggest ever". But they still are pretty mediocre capitalist, corrupt systems driven pieces of legislation that stop far short of actual wellbeing for the governed.

The Dems are excited to move .01% further than they ever have before and call it "consequential". Dems are the party of "we won't say gay marriage is good, but we'll offer domestic partnerships... in some states" as if it's some grand gesture.

The party needs to wake up, stop accepting these garbage barons, and starting building policies that inspire people.


> 1 senator…

Oh, please, that’s not true. But yeah, you need 60 seats there in order to just ram things through. Right now Democrats don’t even have a plurality of the voting public so it’s not surprising that they are completely powerless.

> Democrats couldn’t even get a SC Justice…

On this one though I’ll fully agree with you, they were 100% ratfucked on Garland’s nomination. In no universe was that more than 0% ethically justified. That was a craven and cowardly scheme.


51 votes can get rid of the filibuster. You don't need 60.


Democrats don’t have 51 either, because they don’t believe in persuading voters anymore, just performing for their most dedicated fans.


It flips back and forth. We'll what happens in a few months. Could go either way.


The Supreme Court displays Democrat in abilities in a nutshell.

Republicans ignored ethics to not-seat Garland. But equally RBG decided not to retire when democrats held the presidency and senate, despite her age.

She is not the first person to put personal ambition ahead of country. There are plenty other examples, on both sides of the isle.


> There is plenty of money to be made selling home layouts to police.

Perhaps more to thieves who can make sure they break into a place worth raiding.


No reason to reprhase-and-repeat.


Says company selling a solution. I'll have a grain of salt, please.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: