My theory is it’ll make children more anxious when the cookie-cutter nearly perfect schema is broken.
We need rough edges, we need some level of inconsistency.
If a child is grown up on machine, they’ll prefer machine for friends, dating, colleagues.
We’re already seeing a subset of the population who are less physically social turn to AI to fill the gap. Not necessarily a bad thing for adults, but preferring machine over humans in place of friends during a childs most formidable years is a recipe for societal disaster.
It brought a large number of countries to the negotiating table, and shows he’s willing to execute on threats of keeping tariffs high for an individual country.
Now is the ripe time, 90 days, to make a deal with the US and offer the best terms.
The whole point of Trump is to leverage uncertainty, make an unrealistically high water mark, then go down from there (to a point thats still very favorable)
This rationale can explain many actions he’s taken. Is it reckless? Risky? For sure. Does it work? It has in the past, let’s hope it does for the global financial system, for everyone’s sake.
> It brought a large number of countries to the negotiating table
Did it? They said it did, but I wouldn’t trust a word they say.
What concessions has he actually got from the rest of the world? Was it worth it? It seems to me the two biggest trading ‘partners’ (China and EU) were escalating, not conceding.
> Are you really doubting that countries wouldn't negotiate? Seriously?
Yes. Trump and his administration lie more often then they tell the truth. There's virtually no reason to negotiate under those conditions, as random decisions will often have indistinguishable outcomes.
All the countries who chose to do nothing, evidently, came out on top. Because the decision was reversed. Those attempting to conform to the chaos will be whiplashed around, like fish in a Tycoon. Doing nothing at all proves to be an equally effective strategy, on average.
> Now is the ripe time, 90 days, to make a deal with the US and offer the best terms.
What terms? Remember, the tariffs were not reciprocal -- that was a boldfaced lie. They were based on trade imbalance. So what, Cambodia is supposed to pledge to buy ... what exactly? ... from the US in order to balance its trade?
The reason Cambodia or Vietnam have a trade imbalance is because US/other companies have factories there to produce the goods. You think those companies are going to set up garment and shoe factories in the US? With what labor?
The whole thing reeks of a shockingly inept understanding of global trade and economics.
This rationale can explain many actions he’s taken. Is it reckless? Risky? For sure. Does it work? It has in the past, let’s hope it does for the global financial system, for everyone’s sake.
Global financial reacted to the idiocy adequately enough to tell you what it thinks of it… You are trying to rationalize something that is as far from rational as it gets…
This reckless way of negotiating has a cost: our trustworthiness. The more recklessness Trump does, the more other nations will strongly consider naming some other currency the global reserve currency, such as the euro, the yuan, or something else, maybe even something new.
This isn't 1946 when the United States was heads-and-shoulders the most prosperous nation on earth, with most other developed countries having to rebuild. Other regions such as the European Union, China, and the bloc of East Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) also have strong, competitive economies with a high standard of living for many of their residents. If they got together, it's possible that they could move to some alternative to the US dollar should they wish, and with Trump's bullying, this might just be the push.
Even if that was the idea, the agreements are worth less than the paper they are written on. He is boo-ing and shredding trade agreements that he made himself during his first term. He says one thing one day and the complete opposite the next day.
The fact that what they’ve been saying all along is that the goal of the reciprocal tariffs is to renegotiate with all countries for a more fair economic playing field. Many people aren’t so fickle as to just assume everything the party they don’t like is doing is insane and a big conspiracy to insider trade and ruin the world.
The President's advisors are saying multiple contradictory things. You're right that they're saying that the reciprocal tariffs are a negotiating ploy, which implies that they'll negotiate a much lower rate. But at the same time they're also saying that they're going to use the tariffs to raise enough revenue to replace income taxes as the main way of funding the government, which implies that the tariffs will stay high. Then they're also saying that the tariffs will be used to support domestic manufacturing, which implies that the tariffs will stay high and predictable.
It doesn't make sense that the tariff policy can be both leverage in a negotiation with the ultimate goal eliminating trade barriers and also so high and predictable that they can raise something the 10-20% of GDP.
The logical conclusion is that there is no plan here - we're living in a world like England under Henry VIII, where everything is done based on the whim of the king, and the advisors try to justify it ex post facto.
That's what they say but we literally went through this whole mess not even two months ago with Canada and Mexico. He's already showed he's insane and cannot be negotiated with.
While also saying they were going to be a replacement for the IRS and to stop illegal immigrantion and drugs and force Canada to become the 51st state.
Honest question, do you think this will lead to more work for “hands-on” programmers to fix errors, or this could just be the early stages of agenic coding becoming better and more akin to the best (or close to it) “hands-on” programmer?
Market forces will drive the outcomes in different sectors.
In aviation-minded companies, human-reviewed guardrails will always be in place, some may eventually decide to might as well have humans write the whole thing to begin with to keep it end-to-end auditable.
In automotive-minded companies, "chabuduo" is the norm and agentic may be "good enough if it appears to work" and only involve humans when visible crises surface, in which case the most desired programmer are those who can churn.
We could say better hair leads to better self expression, confidence, etc even if we say its purely an ego/vanity source (which i’d argue, isn’t necessarily the case but for sake of argument lets say it is)
Ad placement algorithms don’t lead to a person’s well being increasing, outside shareholders/business owners which is tied to monetary gain.
perhaps you could say better ad placement for XYZ ad that promotes ABC net positive outcome means the work is positive, but i don’t see the inverse case with hair growth research that has high a magnitude of net negative outcomes on society as ad placement may have beyond:
1. Everyone gets better hair, so a lack of hair means societal pressure to conform
2. The treatment/therapy is patented, and prohibitively expensive where only the elite income brackets can afford it
To say more concisely, theres much more potential for an ad placement algorithm that hyper performs to be net negative on society than a hair treatment that hyper performs to be a net negative on society
Is there utility for a software engineer to understand ML concepts to a deep degree if they don’t perform research?
Trying to gauge where I should focus learning for my career (which i don’t plan to do research in)
Roughly I see a gap in businesses needing AI/ML implemented, but outside some debugging, would it be worthwhile to develop a model from scratch or would some off the shelf model for use case X, tuned a bit, likely fit most use cases for a standard business?
There is a disease here on HN, and "the algorithm" is not helping.
My intuition is that the commentariat has factionized itself. Of course, the fundamental intent here is to make money irrespective of negative external effects. This is because shit rolls downhill.
Reminds me of Fallout's Children of Atom "Church of the Children of Atom"
Maybe we'll see "Church of the Children of Altman" /s
It seems without a framework of ethics/morality (insert XYZ religion), us humans find one to grasp onto. Be it a cult, a set of not-so-fleshed-out ideas/philosophies etc.
People who say they aren't religious per-se, seem to have some set of beliefs that amount to religion. Just depends who or what you look towards for those beliefs, many of which seem to be half-hazard.
People I may disagree with the most, many times at least have a realization of what ideas/beliefs are unifying their structure of reality, with others just not aware.
A small minority of people can rely on schools of philosophical thought, and 'try on' or play with different ideas, but have a self-reflection that allows them to see when they transgress from ABC philosophy or when the philosophy doesn't match with their identity to a degree.
Theres evidence of that happening today at medical companies. [0][1]
The way to do this while retaining trust is to gather data, release the methodology and data transparently, then have other labs reproduce the studies and see if they get the same results.
RFK and others have touted they will be aggressively transparent. In my opinion, lets let them do it and see if their words match their actions.
If it ends up being a connection, we should be able to reproduce with independent labs. If not, then proceed as normal.
Given the historical mistrust with pharmaceutical industries, investing resources in a study such as this is low on the “wasteful spending” list.
Worst case, its a scandal and we need to reevaluate how we handle vaccine testing. Best case it builds trust back in institutions.
Classic scientific method has been tainted by corporate interest.
Why? Why do we need to waste money on something that's already been researched and confirmed to death? And why would you trust someone to be aggressively transparent when the first thing they do when entering office is outright lie?
This isn't a 'big pharma doesn't want YOU to know the truth' problem. There have been multiple and independent studies done into this topic across the globe. The people perpetuating the line of vaccines causing autism are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet with zero credentials and zero actual evidence backing it up.
Yeah. If people are worried enough about something that they vote this hard about it, go ahead and do some more tests. Be super transparent.
The real fight will be the communications about the results. Bend over backwards to explain everything extremely clearly. If RFK Jr oversees a milestone study that dramatically shows there is no vaccine/austism connection then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about it.
Then again, flat earthers seem to lose faith in their experiments as soon as the results disagree with their preferred outcome…
I'd be more worried the results are something like "1% chance of saving your life and 0.001% chance of exacerbating autism symptoms" and RFK focuses entirely on the latter as an excuse to ban vaccines.
We know vaccines can have negative side effects, but a reasonable person weighs those against the (larger) benefits. I don't think the current regime is very reasonable though.
We need rough edges, we need some level of inconsistency.
If a child is grown up on machine, they’ll prefer machine for friends, dating, colleagues.
We’re already seeing a subset of the population who are less physically social turn to AI to fill the gap. Not necessarily a bad thing for adults, but preferring machine over humans in place of friends during a childs most formidable years is a recipe for societal disaster.
reply