Apart from caffeine (which is definitely a stimulant and therefore a drug) I also use sweets and other carbs recreationally and to enhance my performance at work.

That’s a bit extreme. But yeah, the US constitution actually legalizes Luigi in extreme cases. And if the next election would somehow just not happen for a year that would probably the exact case that rule had been written for.

I wonder whether the famous French revolution would even be possible with all the surveillance tech of today.

Good propaganda is. The recipe is to use some facts and add a cause, derive a conclusion, exaggerate the fact, mention other facts irrelevant in the context but implying something in combination…
Just lying gets you the people already in you camp. The others don’t have a reason to believe you. But if you add some facts, the lies become easier to believe if the person doesn’t already know better.

Muricans know very well how to fight - as long as it’s not in their own country and not for freedom and democracy.

Yes. There are the rare exceptions. But since I had to tell it to save to it’s memory that it isn’t allowed to change stuff without a command to do so and that it shall treat my questions as just that (this is likely the actually important part). Then I had to scold it a few times when it ignored the rules. And since then, it actually does obey very consistently.
I use Claude Code, but would expect any frontier LLM to have some “memory” system (in case of Claude Code just an index file and one file per memorized rule or fact).

I first saw something like multi-session “memory” in AIDungeon years ago. It was slow and with only a few kB of context not worth using. But that was literally a toy.

It somewhat makes sense to not depend on foreign infrastructure. Every government should only use AI domestic to their geopolitical bloc.

We are the good guys.

My reaction to the accusation and general stance is that I would absolutely not want to defend you if someone steals your stuff.
Btw, I don’t see how making people hate you helps you achieving whatever your actual goal is.

My IDE told me that there is a new version of some library which fixes security bugs. I asked the AI what will break if I update. It actually found out that the new version requires a license key which has to be updated yearly even for the free use case. So I had it refactor the single use of that library to use another library instead. I then polished the refactored code myself a bit.

When I am done with something, I ask the AI what it thinks about the changes. It then tells me where I violated the style guide and sometimes it finds silly bugs I somehow missed. In rare cases it also finds serious stuff. the code definitely never got worse by having the AI look over it. Btw, looking at it doesn’t mean changing it. I had to tell it to save in its memory files that it should only change anything when explicitly asked to.

When I am not sure why something is like it is, I ask the AI. It then comes up with one or more potential explanations and often I then remember what was actually the reasoning if it’s my own code or the code becomes somewhat understandable when it’s written by someone else.

When some behavior looks like it should be impossible, I ask the AI how it’s possible, and it usually tells me the actual reason or gets close enough to make it much easier for me to find it.

When I’m unsure how to implement something, I discuss some options with the AI. It’s reasoning isn’t always sound. But sometimes the internal dialog is just not enough and chatting with AI works surprisingly well for me.

Just treat it like an extremely knowledgeable college with a serious psychedelics addiction. Can’t let it do stuff unattended. But when it isn’t hallucinating, it is pretty capable. Also, it doesn’t care how much you ask it. In general, every easy to explain task with easy to verify results and low damage on failure can be done by AI. But it is often faster to just do something yourself than explain it to the AI and polish the result.

I tried AI-everything (apart from code review of course). But it’s just too hard. Letting the AI do bigger things results in subtle, hard to find, but devastating design fails and errors. It’s fractal. No matter what layer I look at, it’s always sort-of working but also bugged in subtle and sometimes hard-to-fix ways.
So I don’t do that. Instead I use the AI as an assistant while I still do most of the actual work. I downgraded my account too because I never reached the limits for a while.

It’s fine to not order stuff online yourself. Preventing others from getting what they ordered isn’t.
She should find a hobby which isn’t purely about annoying her environment. Want to be an activist? Well, United Healthcare still exists…

I am preparing for hibernation right now and often crave salmon after midnight. I would love to have a salmon vending machine nearby.

This study actually measured the impact of knowing that your job could be much easier on performance.

It’s murder like in killing a Nazi soldier in France as a French during Nazi occupation in WW2. Sure, it’s illegal under the occupation forces’ law. But it’s still the right thing to do.

How did they manage to shoot that man with a five-year-old? Did they use a trebuchet?! Also, is there an abundance of children or why are they using them as projectiles?

How was that even a prayer. Bro just urged everyone to act based on evidence instead of superstition.

Highly unlikely. In stark contrast to other warmongering nations Russia’s battlefield isn’t over the ocean.

Just the usual US fake-it-till-you-make-it culture.

AI code assistants currently are like that senior dev who knows everything, has experience in everything, and always likes to help everyone. But sadly he does a lot of shrooms in his spare time and sees things that aren’t there. He also has quite the opinionated ideas about what good code should look like.

That implies that you just can’t let him do the quality assurance. He can write code. You can ask him stuff. And he excels at debugging.
But you can’t let him plan the architecture. You can ask him about his ideas and select the ones that are actually good, though.
And you definitely can’t let him review his own code. Someone else has to do that.

So if they literally just let the AI do everything, there is absolutely no way anyone has a chance to ever review the result because AI code is harder to review (for now), and AI loves to repeat itself (for now).
And sure, they can tell it to write tests. But AI is dogshit at writing tests. It tends to forget the important cases, test the wrong thing, and/or obsess about completely irrelevant implementation details.
I also tried the multi-round approach with a committee of agents trying to iteratively find and fix flaws. It only works well for finding bugs, not fixing them (for now).

But while AI can’t replace me, it is really nice to have as a tool - just like I have syntax highlighting in the IDE, I have a code assistant that can autocomplete a few lines of code, find out why my code misbehaves, or tell me what some library method is supposed to do. Sure, I have to still verify the results. But often, finding the bug or information was the hard part.
Coding assistants are great. Just don’t let them write too much code at once. You need someone who still actually understands the codebase. That sadly can’t be an AI (yet).