Without all the oxytocin you get from hanging out with a newborn that would be awful

Completely correct. With all three of my children I was sleep deprived the first few months. But never in my life have I felt better.

For all the difficulties, children are rejuvenating and fun and provide purpose to life.

These brain chemical rewards apparently do not work on me, my (still young) kids provide no such rejuvenation. Luckily I'm a deep sleeper so I have no sleep deprivation problems.

This may change with age. My children were cute but didn't engage me much emotionally while they were still mostly crying, pooping, and trying their best to hurt themselves. Once they became more multi-faceted that changed.

That's an interesting question, but the answer probably isn't worth the trauma you'd inflict on a child by intentionally raising them to be completely unaware of the existence of hats.

Why is it "people are willing to pay" and not "corporations are brazen enough to charge"? These utilities are necessities and relatively few people have access to cheaper alternatives to them.

The regulations mandate that the market operates that way. It's the government that should be held to account.

Because, under usual circumstances, self-interested corporations compete against each other to get as close to what people are willing to pay for energy as possible.

> compete against each other

Citation needed.

There’s a reason most universities don’t hand you a bachelors degree in economics as soon as you complete EC101. You should look into EC102 and the rest of the curriculum.

Unfortunately since PG&E is a regulated utility it's not that simple.

When you compare PG&E's electricity rates to the rest of the nation (and neighbors like SMUD), you can see that the CPUC isn't doing much.

I usually invert those to reduce nesting

There's a difference between buying groceries for your family and losing that same amount of money on a hand of poker.

I suppose I can't afford to become a "member" in order to read your article about it then.

The water from sewage might end up there after it's extracted and sanitized, but all the solids have to be disposed of too. Those solids, plus the leftover chemicals used to extract and sanitize the water, go to landfill.

AI is not humanity. Also many open source licenses have attribution clauses, which AI does not honor when it regurgitates.

I think the attribution is a very good point!

Essentially LLMs are recontextualizing their training data. So on one hand, one might argue that training is like a human reading books and then inference is like writing something novel, (partially) based on the reading experience. But the contract between humans considers it plagiarism when we recite some studied text and then claim it as your own. So for example, books attribute citations with footnotes.

With source code we used to either re-used a library as-is, in which case the license terms would apply OR write our own implementation from scratch. While this LLM recontextualization purports to be like the latter, it is sometimes evident that the original license or at least some attribution, comment or footnote should apply. If only to help with future legibility maintenance.

It's a zero sum game. AI cannot innovate, it can only predictively generate code based on what it's already seen. If we get to a point where new code is mostly or only written by AI, nothing new emerges. No new libraries, no new techniques, no new approaches. Fewer and fewer real developers means less and less new code.

Nonsense indeed. The model knowledge is the current state of the art. Any computation it does, advances it. It re-ingests work of prior agents every time you run it on your codebase, so even though the model initializes the same way (until they update the model), upon repeated calls it ingests more and more novel information, inching the state of the art ever forwards.

Current state of the art ? You must be joking .. I see code it has generated, some interns does better.

Obviously, you are also joking about the thing that AI is immune to consanguinity, right ?

I've seen terrible things where it would overcomplicate and duplicate. But I've also seen it write really good code. I've been trying to get it to do the latter consistently. Detailed specs and heavy use of agents really helps with the code quality. The next step is editing the system prompts, to trim away any of the fat that's polluting the context.

If you have had interns who can write better code than Opus 4.5 I would very much like to hire them.

Nonsense. LLMs can easily build novel solutions based on my descriptions. Even in languages and with (proprietary) frameworks they have not been trained on, given a tiny bit of example code and the reference docs.

That's not novel, it's still applying techniques it's already seen, just in a different platform. Moreover it has no way of knowing if it's approach is anywhere near idiomatic in that new platform.

I didn't say the platform was the novel aspect. And I'm getting pretty idiomatic code actually, just based on a bit of example code that shows it how. It's rather good at extrapolating.

Practical Common Lisp by Peter Seibel, and then The C Book by Mike Banahan, Declan Brady and Mark Doran. No clue why those books in that order, but they both proved to be decent choices.

Then I had a couple of jobs where I was given access to data and opportunities to go beyond my expected duties by doing things with that data, i.e. automation and reporting.