zbyte64

There's plenty of theory to draw from, like the Cynefin Framework or Wardley Mapping. But like the left, there's no real consensus on what we ought to be doing but no shortage of opinions.

That's bullshit; being communist isn't a free pass to be antisocial. History has an example of literal pedophiles organizing under the banner of communism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#:~:text=Until%201987%2C%20the%20Greens%20included,dealing%20with%20child%20sexual%20abuse.

Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy:

• The Constitution should be interpreted with "originalism" or at the very least venerated
• Police sacrifice X, therefore it's okay if they do extralegal Y

I'm not saying there aren't systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It's that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie "our founding fathers were smart people") are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality?

I find it a bit ironic that cars and traffic lights are being used as a metaphor for why anarchy won't work. Let's put aside that the example is of poor collective planning to build urban environments. Go to Vietnam and see how people drive without traffic lights, it's complete madness. But it works, and in some ways it works better than what we have because the accidents are fewer and less severe while also serving more diverse modes of traffic.

Sorry, but I don't trust humanity. How do I know this isn't just some ploy to further enslave workers?

No, that is just another class of ownership. Whoever maintains the AI would be the ruling class. Or if we're talking AGI, there's little reason humanity should trust what humans build over what humans do.

Oh, in that case it's a Democratic Republic of the Free People. The label the government chooses for itself might not be accurate according to political science.

But to think that our government, should it become ~~communist~~ liberal, should be allowed to kill people in order to maintain a ~~socialist or communist~~ liberal or capitalist society

Seems to me the real objection should not be the ideology but the existence of any system that must murder the people it governs in order to continue to govern.

everything we say is the purest truth possible!

People obsessed with purity will think like that.

Automation suites exist and they are very much tuned to the individual apps. It seems giving ML an OCR readout of a page is not enough for it to know what it should do (accurately). We have had a training set for "booking flights on a browser" for about 6 years now and no one has figured out how to have it disrupt automated testing: https://miniwob.farama.org/

Yeah, very ironic that deleting misinformation is equated to deleting accurate information.

I'm providing explicit examples of compilers doing "the stuff we want it to do". LLMs do what the want 50% of the time and it still needs modifications afterwards. Imagine having to correct a compiler output and calling that compiler "useful".