Rephrase your question. I don't know what you're asking.

> Price increases: As VC funding dries up and companies face pressure to turn a profit, we'll likely see sharp increases in the cost of AI services.

I disagree. Yes, the VC funding will dry up, but hardware and algorithmic advances will decrease running costs by equal amounts.

Lack of a moat will prevent companies recouping past expenses, since any who try will be outcompeted by new market entrants who don't have those past expenses.

Well you could at least start with solving everything in 24 hours that can be solved in 24 hours. More often than not such bugs take days, weeks, months not because of time in IDE, but because of backlogs, prioritization, time in test and longer release cycles. Streamlining that sounds mostly a win to me.

Note that a bug fixed in 24hrs is also a bug that doesn't have to be fixed later. I mean the development work has to be done at some point anyway, and this may even save some time discussing and bouncing around the issue.

from the original tweet linked in the post "ceiling is being raised. cursor's copilot helped us write "superhuman code" for a critical feature. We can read this code, but VERY few engineers out there could write it from scratch."

I don't really agree that code is superhuman if VERY few is able to understand it haha..! Code should complex but easy to follow to make it brilliant in my opinion

It's a very difficult choice to make and I have full sympathies for the lady. I also respect herc choice, considering that it was made by her own free will and complies with the law of the land.

However, I still feel a bit conflicted about this situation. As per the report, she is physically fit, has a loving boyfriend, a pet cat, and doesn't seem to be in any monetary duress. Plus, she happens to be living in one of the happiest and prosperous countries in the world.

When I compare her with a vast multitude of people in developing countries who continue to toil against all odds (physical, mental, societal, economic, etc.), I feel that she should have been encouraged to not give up.

An old song that has always stuck with me has lyrics that say, "there is so much pain in the world; (comparatively) my pain is so little. When I saw people's pain, I forgot my own."

Of course, these are just my thoughts. I fully respect her (& everybody else's) rights to decide what's best for them. May she be at peace with her decision and enjoy her remaining days in a better frame of mind.

Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument makes those assumptions and others in order to prove that the likelihood we are being simulated approaches unity. A core component of the argument is that they’re enough like us that we are a simulated version of them in a simulated version of their universe.

Without those assumptions there isn’t any basis for a claim at all. “We are in a simulation” isn’t any more coherent than saying “a dog is dreaming us.” It could be, but there’s no reason to believe it is at all.

So, I don’t think you can just wave away constraints and say “Well maybe those are just local” because it raises questions about utility. Why would beings in a world without constraints simulate us in a world with constraints? It wouldn’t be necessary to constrain us. Likewise, an ancestor simulation that runs at a rate less than real time seems to have very little utility.

Unfortunately, once you introduce constraints you suddenly have some minimum condition for which you can’t actually simulate and actually have to just do. And you not only have to do those things for your simulation, but for their simulations, and their simulations… (And all these simulations are required to make the claim that we are almost certainly in a simulation because they’re part of the math.)

"If the simulation is ,already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles"

That would be very unlikely, again, mathematics would likely be the same and this limits options. The guys simulation us would be bound to mathematics and limits (e.g. computational crunching power).

In "grand theft auto" you also just simulated/render, what is necessary at a given moment. By the way, the rendering would be a nice interpretation for the "observer" of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics :-)

"The whole simulation hypothesis seems like a new way to introduce theological concepts with modern tech. Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified."

I have bad news for you. There is no proof in Science. :-(

The problem is, that if it is possible to simulate us, then the likelihood that we are simulated is much higher, than that we are not. This is a problem!

And yes, can be tested. "Stacking Problem". The simulation may be not bound to some physical principles or some physical principles may be changed (e.g. real time vs. simulated time). But some physical laws exits in the real world for sure and the simulation if bound to it. E.g. exponential mathematics and limited ressources. The the simulation would have to avoid, that the simulation runs it own simulation that runs it own simulation... Even the biggest super quantum computer would go belly up at some point. So if we are living in a simulation, there should be an interest to avoid that we are running our own simulations.