I agree with the “panic, not bubble” assessment, and although the medical applications are pretty cool, I don’t think there’s actually anyone who’s going to be “the next google”.

The only big opportunity I see here is the possibility of replacing humans with machines em masse, and I think there’s a certain kind of person who has a ton of money and is absolutely drooling all over this possibility.

But I don’t believe that’s where this is going at all. To replace a significant number of workers, they would need actual artificial general intelligence, but bigger and bigger LLMs are not a path to that. They’re smoke and mirrors that can look smart, but fundamentally are not and never will be.

I’m not immersed in this, so maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I can gather from listening to people who do know what they’re talking about, the the whole “AI” craze is basically a dead end, and the sooner investors figure this out, the better, because all of this money has been thrown into a furnace and is just gone.

Perhaps along with de-industrialization; as more labour is outsourced, less labourers are needed.

This is the subheading on the article (emphasis added):

Some worry that New York City’s crackdown on unsafe cyclists leaves them facing greater consequences than drivers, even though cars cause more fatalities.

So why let drivers off the hook? You seem to care about safety, but then support enforcement that disproportionately affects those who are doing less harm? There’s no logic, it’s just vibes.

Culturally, we accept drivers causing a significant amount of death and destruction, but get so mad about anyone else. It’s not rational.