You know that's exactly how it's going to be. There are two attributes of this administration that are just as prominent as corruption -- laziness and incompetence.

"NoTermsNoConditions"... Proceeds to list 9 terms and conditions.

It should be called bare-termsandconditions or minimal-termsandconditions.

Maybe then people will start to realize crypto isn't even worth the stored bits.

Irrevocable transfers... What could go wrong?

New goalpost, and I promise I'm not being facetious at all, genuinely curious:

Can an AI pose an frontier math problem that is of any interest to mathematicians?

I would guess 1) AI can solve frontier math problems and 2) can pose interesting/relevant math problems together would be an "oh shit" moment. Because that would be true PhD level research.

Considering that an LLM simply remixes what it finds in its learned distribution over text, it's possible that it can pose new math problems by identifying gaps ("obvious" in restrospect) that humans may have missed (like connecting two known problems to pose a new one). What LLMs can't currently do is pose new problems by observing the real world and its ramifications, like that moving sofa problem.

Yes. I doubt it can do that.

> if that one particular AI-produced compiler has nothing innovative, that only means that the human "director" behind the AI didn't ask it to produce anything innovative

Couldn't it also be true that the AI didn't produce innovative output even though the human asked it to produce something innovative?

Otherwise you're saying an AI always produces innovative output, if it is asked to produce something innovative. And I don't think that is a perfection that AI has achieved. Sometimes AI can't even produce correct output even when non-innovative output is requested.

> Couldn't it also be true that the AI didn't produce innovative output even though the human asked it to produce something innovative?

It could have been, but unless said human in this case was lying, there is no indication that they did. In fact, what they have said is that they steered it towards including things that makes for a very conventional compiler architecture at this point, such as telling it to use SSA.

> Otherwise you're saying an AI always produces innovative output

They did not say that. They suggested that the AI output closely matches what the human asks for.

> And I don't think that is a perfection that AI has achieved.

I won't answer for the person you replied to, but while I think AI can innovate, I would still 100% agree with this. It is of course by no means perfect at it. Arguably often not even good.

> Sometimes AI can't even produce correct output even when non-innovative output is requested.

Sometimes humans can't either. And that is true for innovation as well.

But on this subject, let me add that one of my first chats with GPT 5.1, I think it was, I asked it a question on parallelised parsing. That in itself is not entirely new, but it came up with a particular scheme for paralellised (GPU friendly) parsing and compiler transformations I have not found in the literature (I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have kept tabs on the field for ~30 years). I might have missed something, so I intend to do further literature search. It's also not clear how practical it is, but it is interesting enough that when I have time, I'll set up a harness to let it explore it further and write it up, as irrespective of whether it'd be applicable for a production compiler, the ideas are fascinating.

"universal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

If most people are thinking "whoopdedoo... you clearly have more money than sense" when they see your status symbol, is it still a status symbol?

Status symbols signal different status in different contexts. Some contexts (mostly lower middle class and below) are impressed by Rolex watches because they are expensive and the struggle for money forms a collective experience.

The old rich doesn't give a shit about Rolex watches beyond noticing the newb rich using them to tell on themselves.

And some people just don't give a shit about a fancy watch no matter how much money they have or don't have.

It depends, if someone fundamentally believes that having more money than someone else means that person is of higher status, then it is.

If people don't consider that someone with more money is of a higher status then symbols of that wealth aren't meaningful.

I think a lot of people have an ingrained belief that "more money == more status"

I keep a VM with windows on it. Unfortunately you have to purchase a license. Hopefully I'll be able to upgrade it like they've allowed since ~Vista. But now anyone tracking user agents knows I'm not using Microsoft. I didn't even put a browser on the VM. I have used the VM under 10 times over the past year and that's usually just to use Quick Assist to help others with their Microslop OS. Sometimes to deal with a particularly obnoxious excel file.

If you're going to replace tools as fundamental as the file manager, you may as well switch to a stable and fast operating system like most Linux distributions or Mac.

Yeah, that's what I did, eventually, but some people still need some software that only runs under Windows, or want to play games without messing around with Proton etc. etc.

Add another layer of jank to review the original jank? That doesn't sound like a very helpful solution. But the companies selling AI will love it!

Technical Supervision of the Investor is a thing, for a reason. The fact that IT industry doesn't have it is ridiculous.

And more importantly, think of the funding we’ll get