The key point here is hypocrisy. The very evident double standard.

A person holding a camera and following you around is an emergency or at the very least a suspicious act worthy of investigation and possible arrest.

A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy.

Its not clickbait in the normal sense of overselling a series of un-noteworthy events IMHO.

Rick and Morty. Procgen surfaces but a human story under every furniture-aliens-sit-on-humans multiverse.

Or alternatively Scavengers Reign

Personally I want spelljammer. Baldurs Gate meets Sea of Thieves in space with 80s killer clowns

There is so much drama that can happen there and the scale is the least of it.

Sure, killing robots would stimulate the economy but I’d like to see robot victims reduce the surplus population!

They’ll never match real children when it comes to dying horribly.

An even better analogy is if my dog attacks someone I am still liable. We have a clear standard: If your property commits a crime you are responsible even if your property thinks and acts independently.

Property cannot commit crimes. Only people can.

While this may be correct with the meaning of words in law, I think it is not unreasonable for a non-lawyer like myself to phrase "Alice's dog bit the postman" as "Alice's property, her dog, committed the act which was the crime of biting the postman; as it was her property, Alice is held responsible for the offence".

I am also not a normal person, obviously normal people don't write that way, I hope I'm being precise in the right way and not introducing yet another layer of "legal jargon is both precise and not that".

Biting the postman isn't the crime, though. The underlying crime in this example would be gross negligence or recklessness for failing to control their dog.

*nods*

Hence me drawing a distinction between the legal meaning of words and the common meaning.

So, given that I'm not a lawyer and pattern-matching from what you've said, I do not know if would I be correct to answer "If your agent does something that would have been a crime if you'd done it, who is responsible?" (which is not the headline question, and changed due to the reasons you gave) with "In this case, you would be grossly negligent or reckless for failing to control your AI"?

Yes, I think that would be a better way to frame the question. :-)

There are a few exceptions, I live in an odd neighborhood where a group got together and rehabbed a bunch of dilapidated homes facing an alley. They got permission from the city to make the alley a pedestrian mall and green space. Our HOA exists to maintain the pedestrian mall that is essentially our front yard.

But is a hotdog a sandwich?

No, it’s a taco, because the bun is one piece rather than two, as required for a sandwich.

I'm not sure that holds.

If I crumble an assembled taco, I get nachos.

If I crumble an assembled hot dog, I do not get nachos.

If the two were equivalent, performing the same action on each should produce similar results.

I suppose you could say that hot dogs, subs, hoagies, etc are kinds of tacos, but I can't see what element of the taco should give it this priviledge. It would seem, rather, that tacos, hot dogs, and sandwiches are all examples of the ursandwich where some (hot dogs et al) are members of the triwich family (being surrounded on three sides or containing a single continous substrate on three sides) and that some (burgers et al) are members of the duwich family.

This allows us insight into the great pizza debate. To the uninitiated, the thin crust and deep dish appear similar. We can see, however, that they are merely related cousins on seperate sides of the urwich family. One is a rare example of the unwich having bread on one side, while the other is a duwich. This easily explains the preferential division in humans. Some see no familial distinction while others care deeply as to which derivation of the urwich they are eating.

edit: on an entirely unrelated note, I will die on the 'cereal and oatmeal are soups' hill

Nachos are not crumbled tacos for four reasons:

- nachos use (deep) fried tortillas, tacos do not (though some are pan-fried after ingredients are added)

- nachos require cheese, which few tacos have

- nachos are baked, tacos are not

- tacos use wheat or corn tortillas, but nachos always use corn

None of these definitions are universally accepted.

A taco is a sandwich A hot dog is a sandwich A burger is a sandwich

There is such a thing as an open-faced sandwich, which has one slice of bread.

I agree that none of these is universally accepted, as there are people who disagree right here!

Open-face sandwiches often have multiple pieces of bread, go by many names, and are similar to toasts and tostadas, which are neither sandwiches nor tacos.

Therefore subs are tacos? Or the two-piece requirement is too strict https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/recipes/italian-sub-rolls-r...

If you cut the rest of the way through the bread in a sub, it’s still completely acceptable to serve, but if cut all the way through a hotdog bun, it is regarded as broken or defective.

The connotation of drastic always being negative is through common usage and not strict definition. See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drastically

Using drastic in this instance is an appropriate, but rare, usage in a positive sense. You are correct that dramatic would be a more commonly used neutral synonym, but using drastic is technically just fine here. It is only slightly odd usage by common practice, but as a native english speaker I hardly noticed it until you pointed it out.

By using a less common word and outside of the common usage of that word, to my ear this adds emphasis, like reading the word in BOLD text or capitalized.

I think it is a very weird phrasing in this context

"drastically improved or completely eliminated"

because drastically often is a negative, improved often is a positive and increase, using a two word phrase were both words are essentially opposite of their common usage seems almost linguistic malpractice.

It would make much more sense to say either drastically decreased or dramatically decreased since the Or in the phrase indicates complete elimination.

I told this joke at my father's funeral. He grew up poor but he had a different mindset and I think it speaks to his character and what he instilled in me:

"A successful business man from New York goes on vacation in a Mexican seaside town. He takes a walk down to the beach mid morning and sees a fisherman coming in with his catch. 'Wow, those are some beautiful fish. Tell me, what will you do the rest of the day?'

The fisherman replies, 'I will take my fish to the market, go home and take a nap, have lunch, play with my children for a bit, then go into town and drink wine and play music with my friends, and finally go home in the evening and make love to my wife.'

The business man replies, 'But if you stayed out all day catching fish you could make far more money!'

The fisherman says, 'well, then what?'

'You could buy another boat and hire some of the young men in town to fish for you and then start making an even bigger profit!'

The fisherman says, 'well, then what?'

'You could open a cannery by the dock and process the fish to be packaged and sold to other cities in other markets and make even more money!'

The fisherman says, 'well, then what?'

'You could retire to a small seaside town, do a little fishing in the morning, go home and take a nap, play with your children, play music with your friends, drink some wine, and go home to make love to your wife.'

Yeah it's a nice and pleasant story, assuming you've never actually met or seen the working or living conditions that most of the fisherman in your story actually live in and the terrible toll it takes on their body.

Those fisherman in your story die at a conservative rate of about 30,000 per year [1], and that's just from drowning. There are villages in the very Mexico your joke makes fun of with large populations of paralyzed thirty year olds due to spine injuries or untreatable permanent muscle pain, rates of skin cancer three times higher than indoor workers and eyes wrecked from clouded corneas and cataracts due to years of glare coming off the water.

And that's the physical toll on fishermen, there's also the economic burden of the fact that the guys actually doing the fishing don't own their boats are in an almost perpetual debt to middleman, which is why fisher "men" often also have to include their wives and kids in the occupation to help out... and of course since there's no insurance, if one of them dies the household's income goes to zero that same afternoon.

But yeah man... nice joke... I'm sure it really instilled a great sense of moral character in you.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03085...

The point of the story is to know the difference between “enough” and a compulsion to achieve that your burden keeps you from enjoying your life.

I hope some day you can appreciate it.

It's actually a reposted story, it's not original.

I furthered the incorrect ethnic origins of the fisherman, but pretty sure that fisherman is from the Mediterranean.

This sounds great until a businessman arrives with a trawler, takes all of the fish, and buys all of the land in your town.

You wildly underestimate the self-preservation instincts of the Mexican fishermen towns.

Unless the businessman arrives with Blackwater, businessman either becomes the fisherman, or fish bait and a warning for future businessmen with similar intentions.

I don’t understand what there is to gain for anyone by making the implicit system we have today explicit?

Maybe it is a clever play to shine light on the problem? (I doubt, but can't entirely discount, it.)

I've been putting off learning Claude and this article had me strongly considering jumping in. Then I looked up Anthropic pricing and its 100x more convoluted than cloud services management. Its a goddamn full time job and independent skill set figuring out how to prevent going bankrupt from AI usage!

I think I'm gonna be a late adopter on this one until the industry figures out a less cumbersome pricing model.

Look at the subscriptions. That's how anyone using the stuff as an individual should be approaching it today if they are dealing directly with Anthropic or OpenAI.

With the $200 Claude subscription I was able to get around $13-15k of API equivalent usage in one month (note: this was during the "+50% usage" promotion that they have kept extending since May). When you hit your usage limit for a given time period you get cut off until the time period resets; don't bother paying for additional usage credits, you will be disappointed.

What I’m reading is this use case is for 3-5 days a week full time dev if you stick to off hours US time. That you can save significantly if you have spiky usage 1-2 days a week by going the ad hoc API route if you’re new and you need to install a bunch of monitoring tools to tell you how best to save week to eeek as your usage patterns change and you risk surprise bills in the 10s of thousands if you get it wrong.

The approach I took was to start with the $20 plan, then when it became clear it wasn't sufficient I upgraded to the $100 plan. The $20 plan didn't cover one night of coding. With the $100 plan I started bumping into the 5 hour usage limits after ramping up over a week or two.

My average API equivalent use is around $30-40/hr. I would just bite the bullet on a plan for one month, then use that to calibrate your expectations around usage and cost optimization. The plans are heavily subsidized.

Thanks for the insight! Really wish they had easier cheaper ways to learn.