The economic force is the LLMs themselves are worse at maintaining slop than good good.

Everything fundamental that makes good easier for humans to maintain also makes it easier for LLMs to maintain. Full stop.

I figured it out from context clues

CC: Claude Code

TC: total comp(ensation)

Thank you for clarifying! (I had no idea it needs to be explained, sorry.)

All legislatures need to work this way as soon as possible!

Ah this is very good, both the directionary tracking and getting rid of as much coherence as possible. Yay!

Just in time for https://github.com/nix-windows/nix-windows-demo, heh

> Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages,

Hell no. I, a craftsman, was going out of my way to use things like Haskell. I was very aware of the divide the entire time. The present is a relief.

There's two possible futures

- give up capitalism for information, and rely on UBI and gov grants for art and media

- make the market great again with micropayments and subscriptions

Both of these have problems, but also both are better than ads, which have been an unmitigated disaster.

You're making a lot of assumptions: that providers are healthcare providers, that providers want to provide more healthcare, or that providers are incentivized to pay for better healthcare.

I'm sure the system you want would exist if healthcare providers had one customer to worry about: the US government. I can't think of a single doctor, the ones that actually want to help people and not cash a phat check, that likes the current system of filling out paperwork or begging to do surgeries for patients from insurance companies.

Most actually want to just provide care.

Get rid of the middle man, get rid of the profit motive, and you'll get a system that society can actually shape.

Came here to say the same thing — 2's abstract claims the exact opposite. Really damning.

I think the idea was NYT was trying to imply they were running out.

To me, "begging the question" doesn't mean assuming the conclusion in particular, it just means that some of the premises used are less obvious than they are being passed off as. Assuming the conclusion is merely an especially egregious form of that.

I was objecting to the incorrect use of the phrase at the end of the article.

Yeah I don't think it is incorrect. The NYTimes to me does imply they are running out, because the alternative reasons are a bit more condescending to the users and/ or more subjective. So it begs the question in it looks like the NYTimes is hiding their motivate, which is at the very least not so trivial after all.