The printing of money has primarily lied within the purview of the government from the start. Money is one of the few modern physical item, off the top of my head, that this statement applies to. Maybe there are seals or other official marks that this also applies to, but all of these items fall into a similar category.
So while the legislation, and implementation can be deemed problematic, the political desire to prevent counterfeit is not actually unreasonable.
Having particular objects be banned that aren't under the exclusive control of a government actually creates new precedent. Regardless of the technical feasibility that you keep bringing up, this legislation is undesirable because of what could come after.
"Absent corruption" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. The idea that the system can't fail raises the question what do you consider failure, and what do you consider corruption"
If prices increase and wages don't keep up with them, an increasing number of people become squeezed by their environment. This is a slow event, sure, but enough drops can fill a bucket. The fallout from this pressure on the general populace will be the failure that you're saying can't happen. This seems inevitable without an intervening event to reset things.
With that said, I don't think your concerns are unreasonable, and I'm not sure UBI by itself could solve anything. At a minimum price controls or government administering of food and housing would be necessary to keep prices from rising in response to the influx of cash everyone would receive, but the problem of people not working does seem like a big potential issue.
I believe there have been studies to the contrary, but those studies necessarily miss the universal part of ubi, so they don't have the negative feedback loops that could spring up in a real implementation.
Stardew valley was apparently solo developed, and if Google is accurate it has sold over 40 million copies. Even if he sold it for a dollar, the dev would be very successful by most standards.
For the folks who have more positive outlooks how often do you change your code after it's been generated?
I haven't used agents much for coding, but I noticed that when I do have something created with the slightest complexity, it's never perfect and I have to go back and change it. This is mostly fine, but when large chunks of code are created, I don't have much context for editing things manually.
It's like waking up in a new house that you've never seen before. Sure I recognize the type of rooms, the furniture, the outlets, appliances, plumbing, and so on when I see them; but my sense of orientation is strained.
> For the folks who have more positive outlooks how often do you change your code after it's been generated?
Every time, unless my initial request was perfectly outlined in unambiguous pseudocode. It's just too easy to write ambiguous requests.
Unambiguous but human-readable pseudocode is what I strive for now, though I will often ask AI to help edit the pseudocode to remove ambiguities prior to generating code.
I can't speak to the current system because I have stepped out of it temporarily, but if you haven't done so; please tell your daughter that she is not her job nor is she the labels she places upon herself. It's tragic that she's placed so much weight on her job if she still has you supporting her.
None of the things you listed are signs of merit, they are signs of pedigree. If people recommended them here, they did so in error.
There's certainly a difference between universities, but the most important differentiators are connections (has she exhausted these) and prestige. If those aren't working for her, the only thing left is personal projects. That is the true indicator of merit in the software space.
As for specific advice, your daughter is in a similar situation to me. I graduated thinking I had did all of the right things, and that my degree (mechanical engineering) was some sort of magic ticket. I was unemployed and then underemployed for a year or two. I eventually went to a job fair and got a job as a data analyst then, finally, moved into data engineering.
Reality has shown her that there isn't always a direct path to a goal. Are there other skills she has that she could use to get meaningful or interesting work?
Tell her to explore alternate jobs outside of her field or preferred industry, build up a portfolio of projects on the side to keep her skills sharp, and keep applying to her preferred role, but now at a much slower and deliberate pace.
Am I the only one who doesn't take this statement literally and immediately extrapolate it to all aspects of an individual's existence? "I have nothing to hide" is a broad statement that clearly encompasses "everything", but it's often said in the context of a specific thing that a person doesn't care about.
Those of you who would ask someone for financial information after they say this, would you also say "it's hot out side" if they described something as cool during the summer?
Ultimately, given the complexity of security, expecting there to be some cultural shift on privacy is silly unless it's made trivially easy. We can't get people to eat right, exercise, or control their screen time and social media use and all of those have more immediate and tangible consequences.
I appreciate the message, but I don't think the call to action is practical.
I'm from the future and I'm here to tell you how to defeat this current iteration of AI. Stop entering text into their prompt and they die. You're welcome.
Similar "easy solutions" exist for: the obsesity crisis (eat less); climate change (burn less, switch away from beef, use less cement, steel, aluminium); gambling, tobacco, and other addictions (just stop); dishonest politicians (just don't vote for them); heart disease (exercise more, eat vegetables); and poverty (spend less/earn more).
Notice how the "easy solutions" don't generally get followed? That means they're not actually easy solutions, they're short glib answers that miss how the problem became a problem in the first place.
So to avoid the suffering of gambling we need to simply suffer and toil so much in day to day existence that we don't have the capacity to engage with anything else?
So while the legislation, and implementation can be deemed problematic, the political desire to prevent counterfeit is not actually unreasonable.
Having particular objects be banned that aren't under the exclusive control of a government actually creates new precedent. Regardless of the technical feasibility that you keep bringing up, this legislation is undesirable because of what could come after.
reply