> What determines fairness is how the resources in our society are allocated once all is said and done.
I propose allocating upfront the work, so that those who disagree don't have to contribute into the "done" part of those who allocate it in a weird way.
This is in no way a "if you're homeless just buy a house" argument, it's a "you can't have it both ways, pick a lane and stick to it" argument.
You want to unilaterally decide that you don't want to pay much tax on income, billionaires decide that they don't want to pay much tax on capital gains, yet both of you want to continue living in a society where you can buy cheap bread baked from flour milled from wheat grown on subsidized farms, heavily reliant on public infrastructure, and you want to drink clean water and drive on public roads, all of which is paid for through taxes that you want to opt out of, and somehow you don't see a problem with that?
You can't pick and choose parts of society that benefit you and opt out of your duties, that's not how society works. All of those parts that you don't see value in are essential to someone else.
> create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth
the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?
The UBI money gets spent by the artist though, some on food, probably more on rent. The rent money probably gets hoarded by the landlord, the other goes to people selling real objects. That is real money back into the economy.
Looks like my job is ensuring stuff builds, tests and ships correctly, not learning the 100th no-design botched homegrown language that will keep changing for the next 10y until it's a different thing altogether. And because I'm one person out of two in a ~15ppl company, where time and efficiency matter, LLMs really helped out.
> What you want is guarantees that correct programs typecheck quickly.
In practice there's wealth of lemmas provided to you within the inference environment in a way standard library functions are provided in conventional languages. Those act like a memoization cache for the purpose of proving your program's propositions. A compiler can also offer a flag to either proceed with ("trust me, it will infer in time") or reject the immediately undecidable stuff.
> it is easier to 'discipline' the top 5 AI agents in the planet - rather than try to get a million distributed devs ("artisans") to produce high quality results.
Your take essentially is "let's live in a shoe box, packaging pipelines produce them cheaply en masse, who needs slow poke construction engineers and architects anymore"
Where have I said engineers/architects aren't necessary? My point is that it is easier to get AI to get better than try to improve a million developers. Isn't that a straightforward point?
What the role of an engineer in the new context - I am not speculating on.
> My point is that it is easier to get AI to get better than try to improve a million developers.
No it's not, your whole premise is invalid both in terms of financing the effort and in the AI's ability to improve beyond RNG+parroting. The AI code agents produce shoe boxes, your claim is that they can be improved to produce buildings instead. It won't happen, not until you get rid of the "temperature" (newspeak for RNG) and replace it with conceptual cognition.
Just as with most parts of the EU (imo both it's strength and it's weakness) there is some complexity and bureaucracy involved with founding out the political spectrum of MEPs. You can research the EU political groups and the political alliances and the corresponding positions on these Wikipedia pages.
Nonsense since the 2024 European Parliament that has a big far-right wing. The EPP has already broken down a lot of progressive green policies with help of the far right [1], the "cordon sanitaire" is now broken.
> ASML relies on the United States for several of its components, and it’s this very reliance that has allowed the United States to use the Foreign Direct Product Rule and impose export controls on ASML products. However, there are signs of a shift. ASML has already started to reduce its dependence on American technology, aligning with the EU’s goal of strategic autonomy. Earlier this month, ASML announced a major investment in Mistral, France’s flagship AI startup. The Dutch firm invested $1.5 billion in Mistral, becoming the company’s largest shareholder. The deal was widely seen by policymakers as a move that strengthens European ‘digital sovereignty.’ In a sector dominated by American tech giants, ASML’s Mistral investment represents a growing realization from Europe: cooperation within the bloc is necessary for the EU to stay competitive in the AI race.
---
I don't follow, how exactly does the investment into a French AI startup reduce ASML's "dependence on American technology"? Is it a supply-chain dependence, or a revenue-making dependence?
I propose allocating upfront the work, so that those who disagree don't have to contribute into the "done" part of those who allocate it in a weird way.
reply