yes but is there enough demand for tailoring that it would make it economically feasibly to create the investment to automate it? probably not.

and in a world where many/most(?) people have lost their jobs to AI, only the wealthy few will be able to afford tailoring anyway

given the history of humanity, the post-scarcity world of Star Trek seems highly unlikely

If the promise of AI doing most tasks a human can do does become true (and it appears to be on its way, though it's a matter of time), I think this will come as a serious shock to society -- particularly the US and highly developed countries. We are not, nor even trying to be, nor even thinking about trying to be, prepared.

I feel like all players are rowing downstream as fast as they can, in the hopes that they will be one of the lucky few to catch the few ropes while the rest of humanity goes over the waterfall.

It's a very good show and I did enjoy it (at least Seasons 1,2; never saw 3). But "best TV drama" is a stretch. BSG is a better drama IMO (sci-fi, yes, but essentially a drama about humanity).

It's not that AI is ineffective, but it will take time to create solutions that are actually highly useful in real-world business scenarios.

Quickly slapping "AI features" on a bunch of existing products -- like almost every SW company seems to have done in an effort to appear "on the cutting edge" -- accomplishes almost nothing.

And that article is from National Review, a conservative magazine, not the Atlantic or some leftist paper.

The irony of the president coming to office to "drain the swamp" becomes the easily most corrupt, in plain sight, president in US history.

The great thing about populist slogans like “drain the swamp” is that they don’t specify what exactly will be done and how, so they are highly malleable.

At least Claude is nice and short, but only the Extended Thinking model got it right.

Opus 4.6 Extended Thinking:

> At 50 meters, that's basically a short walk — just under a minute on foot. But since you need your car at the car wash, you'll want to drive it there.

Opus 4.6:

> Walk. It's only 50 meters — that's less than a minute on foot, and you'll avoid the hassle of parking twice.

Sonnet 4.5:

> For just 50 meters, you should definitely walk! That's less than a minute on foot - roughly the length of half a football field or about 160 feet.

> Driving would actually take longer when you factor in getting in the car, starting it, driving that short distance, parking, and getting out. Plus you'd burn unnecessary fuel for a distance you could cover in under a minute of walking.

Haiku 4.5:

> Walking is the better choice here. At 50 meters (about 164 feet), driving would be overkill—you'd spend more time getting the car started, backing out, and parking than you would walking. Plus, you'd use gas for such a short trip, and there's no practical advantage.

> Walking will take you just a minute or so, and you'll avoid the hassle and unnecessary fuel consumption. It's also good for a quick bit of exercise!

For many Americans, 50 meters is a long walk.

It would make the most sense to clarify the assumptions with the user first.