Seems to be an unstated assumption that the Ludds were wrong.

We're human supremacists. We would take risks to rescue stranded hikers, but not as much to rescue a stranded e bike. We eat animals but not humans. Humans are special to humans.

Plenty of alfalfa and corn aren't going to food production. And much of those the remaining are not efficient.

https://youtu.be/XusyNT_k-1c

Forming a human opinion about slop is like asymmetrical warfare. Or maybe a closer analogy is a Gish Gallop. It can be generated with way less effort than it takes to comprehend it, much less form a coherent opinion on it.

Very parallel to the asymmetric bullshit principal

But all LLM output is token by token, which isn't too far from character by character in the case of a UUID. Why is this different? I do not know.

I'm achieving nearly 2 FPS scrolling down the page in Firefox. I guess it's not too bad considering there are dozens of text elements here.

Scrolls fine in FF on a 2020 era Dell laptop.

So are you getting a lot of offers this way? Anyway, I admire your dogma.

Well, I’m retired now. I only had 4 jobs after finishing my BS.

Congratulations on your competence.

> Who is buying a kayak, or shed while shopping for groceries?

Who's buying groceries while kayak shopping? The point is if you want to buy something, you can go to CostCo. The thing you want might be groceries, but sometimes people want other things.

If the language is unreadable for humans, we really can't trust that it does what it claims to do, except by testing. This requires more trust in the system than is warranted IMO. You can never be sure that there's no "sleeper" logic waiting to get activated. See "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. If we build systems that start relying on opaque mechanisms, it seems to be only a matter of time before things start behaving in ways contrary to what their authors intended, with no clear way to stop it other than hitting the power button, if that's even possible at that point.