The difference is that - at least in the last 50 years - the US starts wars with brutal dictatorships. Whereas China is threatening war against a thriving democracy.
The US starts wars… they just often happen to be with dictatorships. The US definitely also supported dictatorships (like Taiwan and South Korea).
You can argue all day about whether A is slightly more rotten than B, but if they are both rotten then in the grand scheme they will both end up being the same thing if something doesn’t get fixed.
You had to reach back 50 years to find US support for dictators.
> they just often happen to be with dictatorships
No, they always happen to be with dictatorships. The motives of US politicians are not relevant to this fact (I personally think Trump is corrupt and incompetent); the US system is democratic enough, and Americans are moralistic enough, that even corrupt and incompetent politicians can't get away with military adventurism except with dictatorships. Thus the end of that Greenland nonsense.
Right, and if distance from the present matters, probably the biggest risk to global peace (such as it is) comes from China's increasingly serious preparations for a military attack on Taiwan.
> You had to reach back 50 years to find US support for dictators.
US allies in the entire middle east are literally all dictators or worse than dictators. For example, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, you just need 6 years education in school to understand that is worse than dictators when religion is also heavily involved at the same time.
Yeah I would refine that argument a bit and say the US will sometimes support (or rather, ally with) dictators when the only viable alternative is an arguably worse dictator. There aren't exactly a lot of democracies in the middle east we could be supporting instead.
I think I've typed up and then deleted my response to this comment about 10 times, but now I don't think I'm even going to give you reasoned response.
If you really think that the US has the moral authority to invade whoever it likes because they're "saving the local people from repressive regimes", I've got a bridge to sell you. Even Trump has dropped this pretext facade unlike all his predecessors, and now straight out says "we're going in to take their oil".
Democracy is the idea that people should control their government. The CCP's (and Putin's) notion of "democracy" is something along the lines of "as long as the government controls the people, the people can decide".
Democracy may be a spectrum but China isn't on it, neither in practice nor in spirit. If you have to control the media and prevent free discussion, you aren't practicing democracy.
> Democracy is the idea that people should control their government.
who started the recent war with Iran and war in Vietnam? did those wars started by American people? did those wars got approved by the people of America or their elected representatives?
I don't think I'd like your code. But apparently there's enough implied YAGNI in my CLAUDE.md to prevent the unnecessary interfaces and layers of separation that you apparently like. So I guess there is a flavor for everyone.
> It is a vignette which captures the flavor of a place at a particular time.
That’s my point: It captured a specific party with a small group of friends, but the blog goes on to wax philosophically about how it’s indicative of society and tech as a whole
It’s a perfect motte-and-bailey setup where you’re supposed to read it as a big trend indicative of a place and a scene, but the second anyone criticizes the writing it becomes a retreat to arguments that we shouldn’t take it seriously, that’s it’s just a blog, that we should selectively believe it’s embellished however convenient to defuse any criticism.
I think you're on tilt with this argument now. This is a personal essay. You disagree with some of its implications. That's fine. People disagree with each other. You should just write "I disagree with this", rather than try to critique it as formally bad journalism.
I'm not, but this is not a great introduction. It's handwavy and makes the assumption that AI dev tools are much farther along than they are. I have seen this a lot lately; the farther up the management chain and farther away from putting hands on code, the more confident people seem to be in the power of AI tools.
For big complex real world problems, and big complex real worlde codebases, the AIs are helpful but not yet earth shattering. And that helpfulness seems to have plateaued as of late.
I will take a lot more hand waving from the 70-something year-old Stanford professor who co-created far-up the chain management paradigms that run a good chunk of the economy. That context kinda changes things but what do I know.
That thing he created says you should take your assumptions out into the real world and validate them, ya?
So hand-waving about how easy it is to have an MVP in days w/o actually experience in doing that seems ironic.
Now, maybe he's saying this based on companies he's funded who've had great success with what he's saying. But it's curious that the only concrete example of a company mentioned is one that's six years old and not operating like that.
And in fact, many of the ways he thinks that company went wrong seem completely unrelated to AI?
> Chris is now starting to raise his first large fundraising round. In looking at his investor deck I realized that while he’s been heads down, the world has changed around him – by a lot. The software moat he built with his 5-year investment in autonomy development is looking less unique every day. Autonomous drones and ground vehicles in Ukraine have spawned 10s, if not 100s, of companies with larger, better funded development teams working on the same problem.
> While Chris has been fighting for adoption for this niche market (one that is ripe for disruption, but the incumbents still control), the market for autonomy in an adjacent market – defense – has boomed. In the last five years VC Investment in defense startups has gone from zero to $20 billion/year. His product would be perfect for contested logistics and medical evacuation. But he had literally no clue these opportunities in the defense market had occurred.
> While there’s still a business to be had (Chris’s team has done amazing system integration with an existing airborne platform that makes his solution different from most), – it’s not the business he started.
"Being heads down without paying enough attention to the market for 6 (!!) years" doesn't seem like an AI-caused issue.
Meanwhile, the core suggestion doesn't seem to fix that, it seems almost completely perpendicular.
> You can now test multiple versions of the same business at once (or simultaneously be testing different businesses). While you can be simultaneously testing five pricing models, ten messages or twenty UX flows, the “user interface” may no longer be a screen at all. Testing might be to find prompt(s) to AI Agent(s) deliver needed outcomes.
Ok, but this person didn't even seem to be doing enough paying to the market of one version already?
And while this claim about parallel development being a huge unlock is the most interesting thing, it also sounds a bit glib. Getting your foot in the door is the hardest thing early on, now you're trying to run six versions of your company at once? Each time you get a foot in the door sales-wise, are you trying to make them use all 6 versions, or are you only gonna get feedback on 1? Would you want to pay money to be a beta tester of 6 different products simultaneously, with reason to believe that 5 of them will probably evaporate over night soon?
> the ultracapitalist dystopia the US has turned into
Seriously, where do ideas like this come from? An "ultracapitalist" country that has about as much redistributive social spending as other developed economies[0]? A "dystopia" that millions of people from all over the world clamor to get into every year?
So in other words... he doesn't actually use the tools he's firmly convinced will automate the building of software.
I don't agree with the parent; I think capitalism is doing a lot of great things for us and will continue to, even with AI. But man I'm tired of these hot takes from people with limited practical experience.
The whole post should have just been this one line. He likes the sound of his own voice too much.
That said, it rings hollow. AI doomerism is rooted in Terminator style narratives, and in that narrative, the rogue Sarah Connor changes history (with a lot of violence, explosions, and special effects).
North Korea started out with a "nuclear weapon": Seoul is within artillery range of the border. Consequently the Kim regime has been able to starve and torture its own population, and yes - develop nuclear weapons - without anyone willing to stop them.
You think the problems inside North Korea are ok? Koreans are human too.
There's thirty-some-odd million people in Ukraine who very much would like to get AI weapons before the Russians do. They're coming whether you want them or not.
These are not equivalent.
reply