> ... US stable coins are an abstraction on top of US treasuries...

Nope. Not until these companies allow an independent external audit. I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds.

Oh, and the current administration is clearly corrupt, so this administration wanting to convert the US to bozo bucks isn't one for the plus column.

> I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds

This is a good distillation of the inherent issue going forward with crypto. The people in tech I trust _least_ (cryptobros) are selling in a service that I require the _highest_ level of trust (finance). It's a very bad sales pitch.

You don't buy stablecoins because you trust them. You buy them because a greater idiot will. For that reason, I wouldn't be particularly bothered about getting them instead of dollars, though I'd try not to hold on to them terribly long.

You buy bitcoin because you think there's a greater idiot. You buy stablecoins as a step in the path to buying bitcoin. You don't buy and hold stablecoins.

The why stands. If the Fed got involved in transitioning the currency, which seems MORE likely under this administration (because of the grift and corruption), then they will be negotiating with the stable coin providers and the grift will follow the normal trajectory to the moon or whatever. The arbitrary "not until some independent shows the paperwork" will never be on the table.

Independent audits aren't arbitrary. They're the standard by which you can tell whether an organization is lying about their finances. Double entry accounting and receipts makes it pretty difficult to fake especially when the claim is as simple as "don't worry, we hold the backing value in treasuries." Of course, the independent part has to be truly independent and not paid for by the audited. But they refuse independent audits.

Yup. That's it. Because people are realizing crypto isn't worth the effort to support malware authors, money launderers, and North Korea's nuclear program.

And if you didn't know that's what you're supporting with the hype train, well now you do. Those folks all love and greatly benefit from difficult to audit financial instruments.

Yup. Sometimes that bumblefuck bumbles into something good.

Republicans stopped being libertarian when they started supporting Trump.

Republicans were a coalition of anticommunists. This resulted in neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians coming together. When the Soviet Union fell the coalition started to fall apart leading to fewer libertarians supporting the Republican party since the threat was less. The neoconservatives and paleoconservatives remained in the Republican party.

Republicans were never libertarian in any meaningful sense. There's a reason libertarians have their own party.

You're right. I should have said, Republicans stopped pretending to support libertarian values when they started supporting Trump. At least they used to pretend they were for libertarian values.

The reasons libertarians have their own party is so they can be blamed for in effect voting for Trump when they did not vote for Trump. It is a form of self-flagellation to ensure no matter which sides when, it is your fault to the other side.

When confronted with the possibility of a second term of Trump's uniquely destructive anti-leadership and proven track record of being highly corrosive to individual liberty, if you couldn't swallow your pride and vote actually-conservative then that's on you. I myself had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election. That changed in 2020.

Most of what I see are toys. Could you point us to the examples of production software from AI? I feel like I see more "stop spamming us with AI slop" stories from open source than production software from AI. Would love some concrete examples. Specifically of major refactors or ground up projects. Not, "we just stared using AI in our production software." Because it can take a while to change the quality (better or worse) of a whole existing code base.

I imagine people who are shipping with AI aren’t talking about it. Doing so makes no business sense.

Those not shipping are talking about it.

From what I've seen it's not even "trust me bro", but "we are having so much fun 'building', we don't have time for anything else".

I didn't say AI as a software development doesn't have merit. I asked what production software was being produced from or predominantly with AI tools. I just see a lot more examples of "stop the slop" than I do of positive stories about AI being used to build something from scratch. I was hoping you had a concrete example in all of the hay. Are my expectations based on the hype too high?

That wasn't supposed to be an opportunity for you to get defensive, but an opportunity for you to show off awesome projects.

I was just asking for a non-confounded example of what was claimed. But okay.

Ok, the web portal/learning management site for the university I work at. I’m part of a small team of 5 devs but not a single one of us has developed without the use of AI tooling in two years.

I’d say it’s rarer to find a dev who doesn’t use AI tools in their arsenal these days, that’s why your question sounds so odd to me.

I don't know why you were getting down voted for this. Discovery during technological development of scientific instrumentation is one of the greatest returns on investment of funding pure science research. And like your sibling comment says, the pure science helps direct applied science, eg cutting edge materials science. Long tail, if for no other reason, because its a whole other development process that happens after the pure science.

The recipe of coke is not a copyright, it is a trade secret. Trade secrets can remain indefinitely if you can keep it secret. Copyrights are "open" by their nature.

In the context of this discussion though, what makes you think openai can't keep theirs a trade secret?

I was agreeing it could last a very long time, even longer that copyright. But specifically because it is not copyright. But as an AI model, it just won't have value for very long. Models are dated within a 6 months and obsolete in 2 years. IP around development may last longer.

Hopefully.

Please keep telling your story. This is the kind of shit that medical science has been dealing with for at least a century. When evaluating testing procedures false positives can have serious consequences. A test that's positive every time will catch every single true positive, but it's also worthless. These LLMs don't have a goddamn clue about it. There should be consequences for these garbage fires giving medical advice.

Part of the issue is taking it's output as conclusion rather than as a signal / lead.

I would never let an LLM make an amputate or not decision, but it could convince me to go talk with an expert who sees me in person and takes a holistic view.