Well a light refactor of deduplicating code would be a refinement that is generally easy to review and likely comfortably in the capability of the codegen.

Versus creating, which generally is harder to review and requires the submitter to explain the rationale behind the change.

Volume of code and nature of change.

Of that comes to pass, they can change it.

The codegen is a particularly big problem for famous open source projects. All of a sudden you have a flood of people trying to get their name on your project and flooding you with low quality stuff. Codegen enables folks without good ideas to generate submissions that demand a lot of review. Being about to shoot down obviously AI content without deeper review is pretty critical to keep the project viable. There may be good things tossed out with the bathwater, but it is a ton of bathwater. Besides, if there’s something real behind it, a good human is likely to emerge to take it forward more credibly.

Closed source or personal projects can enjoy a bit more judgement. You can evaluate the people independent of the submissions and may be able to have an even more nuanced take.

It’s not like it is a legally binding agreement that needs a high level of quality in adjucation. If things seem off then it can be cited and you don’t have to prove it. Conversely, if something passes human review despite being codegen, well then I guess the codegen isn’t that bad

I’ve seen a pull request that was ultimately nonsensical but plausible and short, and purported to be needed in a configuration none of the maintainers had access to. It was a pretty harmless change either way so they were inclined to accept it. But they sought a little clarification and the clearly LLM response in comment got it shut down. No human stepped up to actually explain an understanding and the LLM sounded like a TV show writer writing tech, sentences that sounded credible but to anyone with understanding was nonsensical bullshit.

LLM code can sometimes be hard to tell in a short code change, but the prose when things are anything vaguely needing explanation is just so very very obvious.

They can’t count on a jury that hates insurance companies. You would be surprised how many folks might be neutral on it, and jury selection can spend as much time as they want trying to find those people. Last time I might have served the lawyers dismiaaed essentially the entire jury twice over before accepting and that was over some anonymous little civil suit.

With respect to the family man angle, well there’s not much to be done on that front by the defense. “He was a dick who had it coming” isn’t a legal defense and even if attempted, people would probably think it is a bad look to try to smear the reputation of a dead man.

On the Internet circle jerks, a folk hero getting off seems really neat and with enough celebration seems even probable. Reality is not so.

Just wish it cut both ways, that health care executives be more accountable for lives lost due to their misbehaviors.

Yeah, but you’ll have to submit to every known provider and hope the user used one of the ones that provide this checking service, and didn’t do something like ask a local model to just randomize synonyms in a text.

You still have choices.

Variable names are pretty free form.

A switch statement or if/else might be a choice that achieves the same thing. Waffling between them would be highly suspect, since a person isn’t going to be so wishy washy. So you could use structural choices too.

AI code tends to look more obviously AI than prose anyway.

Well, they got the 1 off-site bit…

You don’t have a car. Do you receive packages? If you called for medical help, how would it get to you? Most folks if they don’t have a car at least want option for a bus, which requires roads. We can’t build rail to reach every household (you said freeway next to your home, so that doesn’t sound like it’s a very downtown situation).

Perhaps there shouldn’t be as many cars on it as you deal with, but the roads themselves…

On the Flock cameras, pretty much agreed.

Data centers are a bit more interesting. Sure the land itself is “find a willing landowner or handful in a sea of any land that would be equally ok”, but then you have supporting infrastructure. Perhaps not as large of a route to secure, and more flexibility to make pretty sharp turns and such, but still lots of room for people to get in the way of a critical dependency. So surely the datacenters are having issues getting power to their facilities in the face of so many people around their property not wanting to give up their land right? No solution for that.

Oh yeah, if they won’t sell their property to facilitate it, the government will just take it over: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/07/16/when-can-a-power-company-take-your-land-for-a-data-center/

So yes, in both datacenter and train, people can make it very hard to get things done. Somehow they find a way for the datacenters…

For midterms for the house, sure there are

They already rigged districts and can focus such efforts on a handful of districts. Similar story for statewide elections, interfere with a single big city in a state and that could assure a senator.

Hence why openAI seems now to want to stall IPO as long as they can…

And you are right, they singlehandedly are most of the problem despite not even being in the strongest position even if you are bullish on AI.

Volumes are going to be down, but they want the same revenue, so they increase unit price, comfy in the reality that it will still be, percentage wise, not worth it for most to care. Will it make it unaffordable for some? Probably not appreciably more than the hardware is doing all by itself.

So in short, it is just because they can.

In the same way it’s accurate to call the human brain a prediction machine

I have seen no evidience presented that the human brain is simply making statistical predictions.

This seems to be a relatively new thing some people are asserting, because they see the LLM behavior and have decided that absolutely it looks so human like it must act the same, and since we understand that LLM is fundamentally statistical prediction of a token, then obviously human consciousness must operate on the same principle.

Even the latest models generate the sort of mistakes that stem from the fundamental limitations. A lot has been done in some contexts for making that not matter so much (e.g. in software development, the strategy is that code may have some verifiable goal, and the models can let the mistakes fly, then take the feedback from the goal, and iterate more). So it still can be very useful, but clearly it isn’t human like because of some of the completely dumb behaviors that result from it not actually thinking about it. It is at it’s best when either mistakes don’t matter (particularly fiction) or at least first mistakes don’t matter and can be automatically reconciled with facts.

By nature, the meme examples will get better because everyone talks about it and suddenly having all that discussion in training data and in search results, the statistics fix. However the operating principle behind them remains the same.

LLM output makes everything stupider, even LLMs.

Sadly, often.

It is sticking the most common content into a blender and dispensing the result according to a few tweaks. I have seen a lot of people eat that up.

Same reason why there’s so much money in low-effort mobile gaming.

It’s one of the things that really sucks, people with creative talent that would otherwise be rewarded and have their vision shared for lack of too many other options being drowned out by a flood of no-effort slop that the masses are just fine with.

For reference, that was the year Vista came out with a minimum memory of 512MB, with 1GB suggested.

“resounding success” but given up as a bad idea.

The fact that it could possibly “work” was not really in question, it was whether it would be worth the costs and drawbacks. It was not.

But either way you are right, space even worse than water with no benefit compared to ocean.

Question is to cover rural communities as-is, do you and up practically replacing every car on the road with a bus? Bus is generally only better if you have significantly fewer of them to scale.

If you didn’t pay for roads, but you wanted public transit, I don’t see how that works.

There’s plenty of room to improve cities without having to bemoan that rural people are living wrong. About the only place I could see is making rural people switch over to intra-city transit instead of trying to have the cars wiork to get within a block of any given destination. That’s probably about as far I think to inconvenience rural people to meaningfully improve things.

Mass transit is only efficient if you have a density of people going the same way at the same time. A bus is only better when you have significant occupancy, and that’s not going to happen in very low density living.

You have to remember that the current investment level assumes that somehow everyone is going to use the AI stuff that much. It won’t do if the only heavy usage is code generation.