It's a new technology under active development so people are simply sharing what works for them in the given moment.

> If these aren't signs of a bubble, I don't know what is.

This conclusion is incoherent and doesn't follow from any of your premises.

Sure it does. Many people are jumping on ideas and workflows proposed by influencer personalities and companies, without actually evaluating how valid or useful they actually are. TFA makes this clear by saying that they were "betting on skills" and only later determined that they get better performance from a different workflow.

This is very similar to speculative valuations around the web in the late 90s, except this bubble is far larger, more mainstream and personal.

The fact that this is a debate about which Markdown file to put prompt information in is wild. It ultimately all boils down to feeding context to the model, which hasn't fundamentally changed since 2022.

Alternatively, others just want to get to their destination.

Would you use your car if you ended up in the right destination 100% - epsilon of the time? Yes, you would.

Or do you suppose this is the best AI will ever get?

Parent wasn't referring to a possible future, but present time. If we get AI I can trust 100% that's another discussion. For now I don't see it and I don't think LLMs are the solution to that problem, but we'll see.

It's from the perspective of not knowing anything about the issue. It would look like jobs failing randomly one day when everything was fine the day before. Not hard to understand.

Everyone benefits with more efficient markets.

It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking HFT/low frequency quant firms "leech wealth".

You can get out of the trap by learning about what they do and the essential role they play in the proper functioning of our markets.

It's an intentionally naive position to say that places don't leech off of others. Even large places like Fidelity and Schwab that respect customers aren't just keeping people's money in vaults. They literally take your checking, savings, retirement accounts, etc. and make money off of them while they "sit".

Firms specialize in intercepting trades and then placing trades faster than 99.9% of others.

These institutions hide behind "we provide liquidity" like it's a selfless act of kindness, whereas that's just a mere side effect, and just one of many.

The entire modern financial system is layers and layers of unneeded complexity that almost solely rose out of people trying to leech money from the system. These financial institutions have built the entire system around them so that now they can say "look at how essential we are!".

> aren't just keeping people's money in vaults. They literally take your checking, savings, retirement accounts, etc. and make money off of them while they "sit". <

depending on jurisdiction and TOS, this maybe legal, but it needs to be announced somehow to the customer; a capital management firm of an ETF needs to buy the included shares, e.g; those have no money "sitting around"?

Sure, it's announced and by contract. But where else do you have to put your accounts?

It can both be true they provide a necessary service and that unfair financialization exists.

We are not in disagreement.

But it is ignorance to say the system would work better without any involvement of HFTs.

simow wrote a tool that does this for Claude code

https://simonw.substack.com/p/a-new-way-to-extract-detailed-...

Unexamined certainty in one's moral superiority is what leads to atrocities.

> Did not a transcendent universal moral ethic exists outside of their culture that directly refuted their beliefs?

Even granting this existence, does not mean man can discover it.

You belief your faith has the answers, but so too do people of other faiths.

What makes you so confident you understand these places when you're not Japanese and had to look up the wiki page for it?

I know exactly what I'm talking about, but I linked a trustworthy source so that it's not just "I told you so". But if that's what you want:

I'm Japanese and I understand this issue perfectly and you don't. It's exactly as I said it is. There I told you so. So go take a hike.

> I'm Japanese and I understand this issue perfectly and you don't.

Um, I'm calling shenanigans on this one. You have a viewpoint that seems more like negatively-biased indirect knowledge of this part of Japanese culture.

Were you born in Japan?

Have you lived there as an adult?

Have you frequented スナック and other types of hostess bars? If so, how did you discover them and with whom?

If you’re older, how has the スナック scene changed over your lifetime?

Comparing snack bars to hostess bars in the exploitive industry sense is pretty funny but you do you.

I think like in modern pharmacology we will find that there does not exist a prescriptive best for everyone because everyone is genuinely different. We may be able to identify a "best available" for the most common cohorts, but ultimately what works best for an individual will be specific to their unique circumstances.

Eg from physical differences or other issues with their eyes, differences in the way their brains process vision information, to nothing more than cultural habits (it's what they're used to).

These differences show up knowingly or not as preference towards either dark or light mode or something in-between.

So it's reasonable to default to eg light mode since that might be suitable for the largest cohort, but ideally it's best to have the option to switch to dark for those that prefer it.

People using dark mode do not use 100% brightness.