I think many people, not all, who are labeled “mentally ill” are just more attuned to the truth that society is depressing and anxiety inducing. In other words, the so called normal people are the crazy ones. But we define mental illness relative to how well someone can function in society, that’s literally how the DSM is used, even though society is clearly mad and perverse and 10 minutes on Twitter or reading the news is more than enough evidence to draw that conclusion. Every tech CEO or celebrity or successful person could be diagnosed with a multitude of mental illnesses, but because they’re “productive” members of society we glorify them instead. Explain to me how it’s normal and healthy to work 100 hours a week, take ketamine and adderall and other hardcode drugs regularly, post rants on the Internet at 3am, go make a decision that hurts or kills thousands of people, and then hit up the golf club after.
Then we take the people who notice all of this madness and tell them they’re crazy, ill, and malfunctioning. We put them in this Kafkaesque nightmare of gaslighting that probably does drive them mad over time.
I don’t want to say that if you’re hearing voices telling you to do things that you’re ok, but if you just feel depressed or anxious I think there’s a good chance you’re just awake to the sickness of society that most people are still in denial about and it might make you feel better to know you’re not the broken one. You still need to figure out how to adapt to the world, but just knowing you’re not broken gives you a foundation to build from.
I understand the point you make but I would counter that being happy doesn’t mean you aren’t aware of the world and injustice around you. It doesn’t mean that you condone it, think it’s good, etc. It does mean you probably avoid self-destructive behaviors like excess drug use, poor sleep, etc.
Many happy people are also agitators for change.
Not to say that happiness is a choice, but you can certainly make choices which make you sick with anxiety. It’s a disordered behavior to purposefully reinforce your sadness and anxiety about the world for no useful reason.
For instance, many people feel compelled to expose themselves to the horror of certain ongoing events constantly, via video. There are whole subreddits dedicated to it, on every side of most conflicts. At the end of the day, that is neither healthy nor productive, solely self-traumatizing. One reason this is a pernicious behavior is because it feels like there is righteousness in being a witness, but in reality it’s no different than self-harm.
I think it might be even worse than that. It's a war for nothing at all.
A defense analyst said, "we can't be sure that the administration has met their war aims" and it made me scream at the radio. What aims? They didn't even bother making something up. At least Bush 2 respected us well enough to lie. I have no idea what any of this is supposed to accomplish.
You're watching a nuclear power putter around a marina with fifty brawling toddlers climbing all over the tiller.
Various potential aims have been mentioned - stop nukes, regime change, support the protestors, stop support for Hamas and the like. The trouble is none of it seems planned out or able to achieve them.
Mentioned by . . the President? SecDef? Did they mention these things before munitions were released? Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but generally before exploding another sovereign nation PotUS does a little speaking thing.
June 2025, when the U.S. struck Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, PotUS did a little thing that Sunday evening, talked about degrading nuclear capability, yadda yadda. It's almost entirely bullshit, but it's still communication.
These OEF attacks are orders of magnitude more extensive, and so far as I can tell PotUS kind of vaguely talked about Iran before addressing an unrelated MoH ceremony March 2. But nearly simultaneously Rubio was talking about unrelated sets of goals, then the April 1 "Clear and Unchanging Objectives" release, so on and so forth, but to date no two goals stay the same four days running.
Back in January (13th) when the Iran protests were going on we had Trump truthing:
>Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY
then he sent aircraft carriers, then, Feb 28th:
>To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.
So that seems to have kicked it off, but helping the protestors seems to have been largely forgotten now.
I remember thinking that there's a problem with the "when we are finished, take over your government" bit in that there are millions of Iranians who'd like the government changed but they are generally unarmed whereas the regime has about a million loyalists armed with machine guns so protestors tend just to get shot.
Well oil is frequently trotted out as a reason to do this, so we certainly can't take oil out of the discussion, whether it feels like it's an obvious bad reason or not.
It's been all throughout the news throughout March and April, here's some examples (please excuse the LLM summary, but summarizing lots of repetitive news links is actually one thing that LLMs do not hallucinate on often):
> March 29-30, 2026: Trump told the Financial Times that his "preference would be to take the oil" and discussed seizing Kharg Island, which handles over 90% of Iran's oil exports.
> April 3, 2026: In a social media post, he claimed that with more time, the U.S. could "OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE".
> April 6, 2026: At the White House Easter Egg Roll, Trump told reporters, "If I had my choice, I'd keep the oil," but noted that he hadn't fully done so because he wanted to "make the people of our country happy" who wanted the war to end
They’ve also said it was to stop their nuclear weapons program, the same program they said they destroyed at the beginning of the year.
They additionally said it was to free the Iranian people from the oppressive regime, and later said we would end their civilization if they don’t agree to a cease fire.
I’m sure obtaining their oil is a goal, but it’s not their primary goal.
Well even "a" goal is a big change from "obviously not".
Historians will debate the true reasons for this invasion, but in the end I think they'll conclude it's just the random actions of a very incompetint and not very intelligent person that acts with pure id.
If I go to the supermarket for groceries and fill up the gas in my car to get there, my goal wasn’t to get gas, it was to get groceries.
The historians are already saying this war is for Israel, that’s what John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs are saying. I’m sure the companies that produce the textbooks will find a way to say how it’s all rather more complicated than that though.
lol those people are absolute shills and frauds, completely discredited liars.
I do agree that Israel is largely the impetus, but citing fools like those people is a bit discrediting. They might be right by accident but they are not serious people.
Plus, you're completely ignoring that Trump was aglow with the thrill of stealing Venezuela's oil. The idea that stealing Iran's oil wasn't a driver is a bit ridiculous, as evidence abounds both before and after the war, in his own words. Just never listen to Sachs or Mearshmeirer unless it is to understand what their puppet masters are trying to trick you into believing.
I don't know about their recent comments on Iran/Israel/US, but these two certainly participated in distributing pro-Kremlin propaganda about Russia/Ukraine conflict:
>Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council about the topic.
>They willingly appear on the programs of Russia’s most odious state propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov ... Mr. Sachs has made three appearances on Mr. Solovyov’s programs since November.
>In John Mearsheimer's 2023 book How States Think, the preface acknowledges him receiving a small financial support from Valdai in conjunction with Best Book award for his 2019 book The Great Delusion.
The financial support point seems like it could have some legs. The other ones aren't terribly convincing. "They went on the bad guys show" or "they said the same things the bad guys say" isn't all that compelling to me.
I don't see how any of it rises up to "lol they've been completely debunked"
As someone who has no dog in the Russia/Ukraine fight (other than my tax dollars), I never liked how if one side said the sky was blue and you entertained the idea, suddenly you love the enemy, and you're parroting their talking points. Nevermind that neither of them are my friend.
Anyway I linked that for "he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council" bit to show he's aligned with Russian state views on the topic.
>"They went on the bad guys show"
The thing is that people who disagree with Russian state are not invited on that show.
I mean it's not clear the current state of things was the ambition before the war, a while back they were talking about seizing Kharg island which indicates capturing oil resources was an objective
No - it indicates gross incompetence of the people in charge of the war and its communication.
Any media worth its salt spend a brief time explaining why invading Kharg would mean mass US casualties, while having no critical objectives only achievable by seizing Kharg.
If one of your media sources only echoed "reports of the US looking to seize Kharg island" without that context it was wasting your time for attention.
The oil is a secondary objective to keep markets stable so there’s less dissent domestically, the primary objective is to weaken Iran so that Israel can continue their expansion in the Middle East with less resistance. Their goal for decades now has been to become a world power like the US, Russia, and China and they manipulate US foreign policy to achieve these aims. This isn’t even a secret, you could read the Clean Break memo or read Israeli news where they talk about this somewhat openly.
The war will continue at least up to elections, maybe longer since Zionism has bipartisan support in the US, but they’ll at least have to change the messaging or approach somehow. These ceasefire negotiations are a farce and will invariably fall through. The US will get no benefits and the spin will be how incompetent the Trump administration is for creating another quagmire but there was never anything for the US to gain from this and the real objective of exhausting the US military resources to undermine Iran will have been achieved. They ideally would still like to install the descendant of the last Shah as the new prime minister, but if that can’t be accomplished they’ll just reset the Iranian civilization back 20 years by destroying infrastructure, oil fields, and killing influential and popular leaders.
The only redeeming factor of the Trump admin is that they are genuinely incompetent so this hidden hand influencing our foreign policy is more apparent but they’re not so incompetent to have started a war they have nothing to gain from.
1. Type safety as basic guard rails that LLM output is syntactically and schematically correct
2. Concise since you have to review a lot more code
3. Easy to debug / good observability since you can't rely on your understanding of the code. Something functional where you can observe the state at any moment would be ideal.
4. A very large set of public code examples across various domains so there's enough training data for the LLM to be proficient in that language
5. A large open source ecosystem of libraries to write less code and avoid the tendency for generated code to bloat
It's basically all the same things you look for in general. I think TypeScript scores high here but I'm curious if anyone knows of a language that fits these criteria better.
Golang. People trash it for being verbose on errors but it's an extremely readable language and it's almost like bash, only much stronger typed and with a very rich stdlib (so it's not likely you'll need a library for a quick script).
It's more or less a perfect replacement for Python for "one-off programs" and "quick scripts". Many bonus points for not having to fight shell quotation rules and trying to remember differences between sh, bash and zsh.
In a world where AI supposedly can write in any language, Go is much better choice than TypeScript. Imagine contemplating for more than a few seconds a choice between simple, fast, cross-compilable language, and a TypeScript -> JavaScript -> Interpreter -> JIT stack.
If you don't know Go, it's more efficient to learn it than to waste the hardware resources of thousands to stay within JavaScript.
Well, these days a small CLI program in Java (say, ls) starts up cold, runs, and terminates in ~70ms, not 1500ms, but yeah, sometimes 70ms is too long to wait for a script.
People never believe me when I say it but I start noticing scripts needing 75-100ms to start. Modern hardware is ultra fast; I want my programs to make full use of it. I got no patience for tech or people who keep insisting "it's not much, it'll not kill you". Well duh, obviously it will not but that's not the point and never was. I want stuff to work between my blinking my eyes and I have achieved that hundreds of times over the course of my career.
That's perfectly fine, and I totally understand people who don't want to sit and wait 70ms for their script to finish running (that 70ms is not the time it takes to start), but let's not turn a <40ms startup into 1.5s. Now, it is true that if you want to launch a minimal HTTP server in Java you may need to wait ~100ms, which may be too long for you, but is also a far cry from 1.5s.
It is, but I am still quoting what I saw before, it was not a fantasy. I don't deny it's likely better nowadays, sure, but I remain moderately skeptical because JVM is still a runtime that needs to boot.
Then again, Golang has one as well, though it does manage to start it up faster it seems.
1. Type checking built in
2. More concise and readable than most languages
3. Trivial to inspect while running, ability to change a running program
4. There seems to be a massive amount of lisp that it is inhaling from somewhere
5. Large amount of libraries.
This has the added benefit that even if you publish the code, nobody will be stealing it.
Edit -- I find it very useful to write tests for critical functions. This catches situations where the agent decides some interesting functionality is no longer interesting.
This is just Kotlin. Strongly typed, more concise than Java or Go (and probably Typescript), less likely to blow up at runtime than Typescript, epic tooling, plenty of public code, and a library for basically anything because JVM.
Java runs a Hello World, cold, in a packaged JAR, in about 40ms. What you've seen isn't JVM startup but programs that do a lot at initialisation (like MS Word), as many Java programs like to do (because they often expect to run for a long time, so they don't care about startup time).
I have not worked with Java in a long time but I seem to remember that most Java programs also accrue a good amount of dependencies and some of them have their own init routines.
That adds up, fast. No idea how is it nowadays, admittedly. Maybe a ton of optimization work was done.
C. At least with Gemma 4 it does a fine job. Writes good error checking. Writes memory management. Mostly straightforward and easy to read. A lot of libraries. Runs everywhere.
There are two working LLM axes. Critic strength: how much the language catches before runtime. Sensor strength: how good the empirical feedback loop is. LLMs benefit from both, but the sensor axis often is undervalued.
Type safety is great, but you can't just quietly disregard the benefits some dynamically typed languages provide; that would be completely ignoring that different tasks weight the two axes differently.
Systems code, performance-critical code, code where correctness across all cases matters more than exploration: parsers, compilers, network protocols, data structures - statically typed languages (like Rust) give you an edge here. The compiler's depth pays for the verbosity, and exploration is less of the work because the problem shape is known up front.
For stuff like building a web scraper, or rapidly prototyping, or exploratory scripts, something like Rust would be actively bad. You cannot poke at a live browser (you can with Clojure). Async Rust adds another layer of type complexity. The signal-to-noise for "figure out what is on the page" collapses entirely.
If I were picking a single language for general LLM-assisted work, weighted across task types, it would be Clojure (or Elixir), with OCaml as the most interesting alternative if the ecosystem were stronger.
Using Clojure and Elixir and LLMs are fantastic with both. Sure, if I get to a super-stable situation then maybe I'd consider moving to Rust (or Jank?), but for now I'm just so happy with Clojure and Elixir in this new world. I'm solving new problems with fully bespoke architecture so the flexibility is key. Clojure for business logic and most DB. With Elixir, it's the actor model and hand-holding as I'm using it for the web layer. I bet Ruby on Rails would also shine for some cases, prob most CRUD for example.
For me, I need to move fast and already knew Phoenix well, LiveView fits my use case, and websockets setup with Phoenix is very clear so switching to a two-language setup seemed better than CLJS. I could have gone CLJS re-frame and all that but it would have been more work and more unknowns. I call LLMs from Elixir also so all of the reconnect, backoffs, papercuts, shenanigans and so on, well I just know how to do this kind of thing better in Elixir. In its way Elixir is a great, like, defensive language. I was able to keep most async in Elixir and Clojure mostly synchronous. There was some pain though with bridge between the two and at times I thought I'd made a mistake. Clojure is fantastic with data and Datalog databases, so no regret. Outside world deals with Elixir, and the temple is in Clojure and Datalog.
Most developers evaluate programming languages by comparing features in isolation, never stepping back to consider the overall experience of using one.
Features are easy to talk about. They're discrete, nameable, and comparable. "Does it have Foo?" is a question you can actually answer. "What's it like to build and maintain a real system in language X for two or three years?" isn't. So people default to what's measurable.
Most devs haven't spent serious time in more than two or three languages in production. Without that contrast, the holistic experience is invisible - you don't know what you're missing, and you don't notice the pain you've learned to live with.
Language communities form around features because features make good rallying points. "We have algebraic types." "We have macros." These become identity markers. The holistic experience doesn't tribalize as cleanly - it's harder to put on a t-shirt.
There's also a sunk-cost angle: devs who've spent years in a language have every incentive to believe its features justify the investment. Honestly evaluating the overall experience might undermine that.
The irony is that the languages with the most devoted communities tend to be loved for exactly these holistic reasons - the ones that are nearly impossible to convey through a feature list. You can rave about Clojure or Elixir all day, but a curious newcomer will land on the homepage, scan the features, and walk away unimpressed: "Meh, it doesn't even have Foo. People say this is great? They clearly don't know what they're talking about."
Well in a recent project I tried TypeScript thinking, OK, LLMs, huge training corpus! massive adoption! api for everything already set up! swim with the current! and I tried various frameworks and so on, but for me reasoning about things and being able to make systems that I could adapt and pivot it was honestly inferior compared to niche Elixir and Clojure. But it's not like I hate JS; I use it in LiveView all the time. And don't mean to imply there are no problems in niche-land though; you've got to be willing to do more yourself and live in a tiny world. Really, LLMs kind of tamed Clojure for me because it seems so far at least that they can handle the glue code and stitching libraries together pretty decently as long as you don't get lazy with architectural choices and stay vigilant. And if I ever hire it pretty much has to be remote or learn on the job, though again LLMs reduce this pain greatly.
I think there's something key you get at in terms of the combo of dynamic environment + type safety maximising both. With a dynamic environment, the LLM can do a lot of interrogation to understand the problem space on the fly. I've witnessed agents sort out pretty complex issues through `python -c "..."`, `groovy -e "..."`, executing snippets of code with Node etc which is much less accessible if they have to compile it first. They can also inject logging code that interrogates the runtime as well (what type do we really have at line 1003?) etc which works better with runtimes that have deep introspection capabilities.
What you're describing is fast scripting in a dynamic language, which is genuinely useful - I agree it beats 'edit, compile, link, run' for exploration. But a Lisp REPL isn't 'dynamic language plus introspection'. A Lisp REPL is a persistent connection to a running process where the agent evaluates expressions against live state and can redefine code in place. python -c throws the process away every time; a REPL keeps it. The difference is the same as between sending one-off curl requests to reconstruct a session versus having an open SSH shell into the box. Imagine using a Playwright/Puppeteer session where you can navigate to a page and interactively palpate every DOM element, like playing a video game, directly from where the code is. Now imagine giving that power to the LLM - it doesn't need to restart, re-compile or even save anything - it just goes and explores, changing the program behavior on the fly.
The type-safety-plus-dynamism point you make is real and interesting (basically Clojure with Spec/Malli), but it's orthogonal to whether you're using a REPL or just shelling out snippets.
The less you have to buy, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you sell, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you can give to others, the more goodwill you can get with them and possibly favors which can save you money elsewhere.
For every DUI arrest made, state police troopers must appear in court, and in evidence motions filed with the court, attorneys have said this has led to a staggering amount of overtime pay for Trooper Bradley.
State records show in 2024, Bradley nearly tripled his salary, earning nearly $250,000 in one year."
Are you implying there's a link between having money and being immune to corruption? In the US, just look at the federal government or titans of industry, like Elon Musk.
A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist (I didn’t vote for Trump) but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. We should also ask ourselves who really wanted this war and how they have so much leverage over our country to instigate it when 50-60% of Americans do not support it. We should ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support. We should also ask ourselves how Congress failed to stop this war which has been illegally executed without congressional approval. It’s all very curious if you think about it.
We can’t just keep finger pointing at the other party whenever things go wrong. There are systemic issues and outside influences destroying this country. Some people think this will all be fixed when democrats take over again in November but they’re wrong and the cycle will continue just with a more presentable veneer of decency.
I'd just like to remind everyone that this guy got fired from Fox News for being too extreme an idealogue.
> I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist
At some point you have to hold adult Republicans accountable for their actions. They were warned repeatedly; they chose to ignore the warnings.
> ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support
Americans love war and guns! This is like, #1 national characteristic as observed by other nations. Especially because America always wins in the movies! The reason Americans are complaining about the Iran war and not the illegal Venezuelan invasion or whatever is because they are losing.
> Well, he did win Democrat votes as well because the party put up such horrible candidates twice.
In the last cycle, the Democratic Party stumbled egregiously, no question; but the functionally binary choice was between a predictable, if unoriginal bureaucrat vs. a documented prodigious liar and adjudicated rapist. I suppose for some tiny number of self-identifying progressives that would be toss-up, but I would love to understand the value system that could produce such a decision.
"But ultimately Carlson’s escalating toxicity, which included an undercurrent of white supremacy and a penchant for demeaning women and minorities, led Lachlan Murdoch, the then chief executive of Fox Corp, to pull the plug, the book says."
The article says too big for his boots and part responsible for a $787m libel judgement. Also called Senior Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications a cunt. Doesn't mention idealogue.
>At some point you have to hold adult Republicans accountable for their actions. They were warned repeatedly; they chose to ignore the warnings.
The challenge is that with a 2-party system it was take a chance Trump wouldn't be worse than he was the first time, or continue with the Democratic platform, which is not necessarily in alignment with a LOT of people. My personal feeling is that this administration has driven the country off a cliff in a spectacularly fast order. I also think the Democrats positions had us heading for a cliff, but it was at least further away.
Trump ran on solving SOME of the right problems. He and all the Republican leadership unfortunately have NONE of the right solutions. I fear the Democrats will think that a rebuke of Trump this election would be a mandate for many of their polices. It isn't, it is a rebuke of the horrible job Trump has done.
Tax the rich, solve healthcare, take note that our country is in an economic battle with other countries, and realize the best form of freedom is when everyone has economic opportunity and stability. Both parties "say" they want these things, the Republicans outright lie about it and the Dems do nothing.
> but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected.
Education. Actually teaching people how to think critically about what they see and hear needs to start as soon as they get a phone in their hand, if not sooner. That education in critical thinking needs to come from family, school, social clubs and religious institutions. I don't think that'll ever happen in America though. Our economy depends on people not thinking critically.
Time and time again, I keep finding that the people insisting schools teach "Critical thinking" were the exact people who didn't pay attention in English class when that was taught.
Like when people used to say that "Schools should teach useful things like balancing a checkbook or paying your taxes". Which is funny, because the skills required to do those two things are addition, subtraction, and reading.
Americans don't learn because Americans are adamant that they shouldn't have to pay attention to learn, that school is a liberal scam, that broad willful ignorance is not something to be ashamed of, that they have more important things to care about.
Families who value education have always gotten a good education in the USA, and that isn't about choosing a private school either. It's about the person needing an education getting personally invested in gaining that education.
Meanwhile Bush Jr gave us an educational regime where schools cannot at all hold back someone who really needs to be held back. So the curriculum needed to be dumbed down to accommodate people.
> Americans don't learn because Americans are adamant that they shouldn't have to pay attention to learn, that school is a liberal scam, that broad willful ignorance is not something to be ashamed of, that they have more important things to care about.
That's why it can't just be school. It needs to be a societal thing that goes beyond schools to all the other places people get socialized and learn. I mean maybe churches, social groups, and families are all teaching the willful ignorance you're talking about, but if they are that's what needs to change. People need to hear the same thing from different places before they'll believe it sometimes.
This comment contains so many different issues that it is impossible to say why it is downvoted. My guess is that any comment that mentions bipartisanship is going to be downvoted.
US foreign policy is and has always been bipartisan. One side is a bit more restrained and has better manners, the other overtly says what is going on.
Yes, Tucker Carlson should have known what was going to happen because he has been in politics for so long. For the average voter who is busy with other things, it takes at least 8 years of intensely following one Democrat president and one Republican. The mainstream media is of little use, since they report daily statements and political theater.
You need to read the think tank papers and follow bipartisan hearings like the Senate Armed Services Committee where there is no difference between R/D except for blaming the other side for current events.
"lying is free" and it has no consequences for these people. whether it is WMDs or war or fiat money printing with trillions or killing millions. What you people call justice is, well it's obv. so no need to write about it. These facts dont change with two party or three party, it's cultural btw.
We all know how some cultures are violent and backwards to each other? some or like this, just different culture
> A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning.
That was just their nice-sounding excuse for voting for him. It's not like they are going to go out and say that they like him because of his jingoistic machismo authoritarian 'strong'-man bullshit.
They'll performatively grumble for a bit, but are all ready to vote for the guy a fourth time in 2028.
Well the simple reason they voted for him is that they are all extremely rich capital owners who wanted his tax cuts. That's the same reason that farm megacorps voted for him even though he destroyed tens of billions of farm revenue with his stupidity in trade wars.
Rich people would rather the country burn than pay 1% more in taxes. It's purely ideological too, as they regularly spend tons to save a little in taxes.
My theory is that basically everything is controlled by income inequality and interest rates. AI should not, in theory, lead to a loss of creativity. If anything, we should see a creative explosion because it’s easier to create more and better things. If nothing else, generative AI is a great tool for brainstorming and prototyping ideas.
What we’re seeing is the over capitalization of everything, everyone is stressed out about making money due to rising inequality and rising costs of core needs like housing and healthcare.
The Renaissance happened because there were enough people with wealth that they felt free to explore art or give their money to artists without expecting a return on their investment. No one does things today as an expression of their soul, they do it to make money. Like the article suggests, people made things because they were happy, sad, horny, or mad. Now they do it for money.
We need to loosen up society’s obsession with accruing wealth, it ruins everything. What we’re witnessing is well described by the term Late Stage Capitalism, or what I like to call The Great Enshittification. It’ll only change when we decide to create something like a social safety net that lets people feel more free to create art that doesn’t need to provide an income.
reply