This. I can't watch people like Harry Ente, not least because of the pain in watching the delay when they draw or click on something.

Saw MIT Press and hoped it would be open access. Thank you for the direct link!

There's also the angle of encouraging a lot of people who don't know any better to rapidly build things that then need to be maintained, all under the pretense that the guy's product will avoid that inevitability...if you just buy more!

> People getting into these positions are getting in by choice, and remaining by choice.

That all sounds nice and logical, but by the same reasoning weren't Epstein's victims getting in and remaining by choice?

Many of them were underage. AI workers aren't.

Gate's dad was also a lawyer. Compare Gate's behavior working with contracts against kids of the same age, say, those who played in band and signed a record deal.

With all respect, not everyone does know what GDB is. Cue the classic Lucky 10,000: https://xkcd.com/1053

I assume you commented as gesture of gratitude. I comment to emphasize the importance of not assuming and as a reminder to project authors to include information, like what their project is and does, in their documentation. Such information should be included per common sense, but alas, it often isn't.

Or they optimize the model for just one more hit, er, prompt. All these AI companies are backed by the same companies optimizing revenue via addiction.

So, same end result (cost exceeds hiring a new engineer), but achieved differently.

The counter, I suppose, is the managers have to deal less with engineers telling them their ideas aren't good or well thought out.

Ah yes, the ye olde "it doesn't need to be perfect" response to serious, legitimate questions.

It's always about cheaper, better, faster. And when the thing being built extends beyond a single person, and still when working alone, conflict shows up in balancing the risks between these. The Strawman of Perfection is just that.

"It doesn't need to be perfect" is incredibly dismissive of the reality of the situation. Ignoring reality seems like a poor problem solving strategy.

No one is ignoring reality. The reality is that my internal tools don't have users besides myself and as long as they do what I want them to do, I'm perfectly happy with them.

So, how is any of this legal? If I set up a script that breaks into the systems of a company, isn't that, like, a crime?

What you're wanting is against their philosophy. However, there is removal via shunning. There's also the query langauge to control the view. So, there's everything you need to do what you want.

Obviously that's going to take some figuring out for queries and aliases. But it seems doable to me.

Awkward, yes, but doable. AFAICT, they've provided a way to do things that go against their philosophy should anyone be inclined.