I think that if you go to an AI for advice and emotional support, it will do what most people will do - tell you what it thinks you want to hear. I am not surprised about this at all, and I do notice that when you veer into these areas, it can do it in a surprisingly subtle and dangerous way.
I try to focus on results. Things like an app that does what you want, data and reports that you need, or technical things like setting up a server, setting up a database, building a website, etc.
I have also found it useful for feedback and advice, but only once I have had it generate data that I can verify. For example, financial analysis or modelling, health advice (again factual based), tax modelling, etc, but again, all based on verifiable data/tables/charts.
I am very surprised on what Claude is capable of, across the entire tech stack: code, sysadmin, system integration, security. I find it scary. Not just speed, but also quality and the mental load is a difference of kind not quantity.
Personal advice on life decisions/relationships ? No way I would go there.
It is also good for me to know that the tools I have built, the data I have gathered, and my thinking approach places me as one of the most intelligent developers and analysts in the world.
> I think that if you go to an AI for advice and emotional support, it will do what most people will do - tell you what it thinks you want to hear.
Open two windows, ask it the same thing from starkly opposite perspectives, then see what it comes back with. If nothing else this exercise forces you to think deeply about what you're considering before you even see what the giant blob of matrix multiplication says about your situation.
That is why you have to always have it ground itself in something. Have it search for relevant research or professional whatever and pull that into context. Otherwise it’s just your word plus its training data.
I had to deal with a close family friend going through alcohol withdrawal and getting checked in at a recovery clinic for detox and used Claude heavily. The first thing I had it do as do that “deep research” around the topic of alcohol addiction, withdrawal, etc… and then made that a project document along with clear guidelines about how it shouldn’t make inferences beyond what it in its context and supporting docs. We also spent a whole session crafting a good set of instructions (making sure it was using Anthropics own guidelines for its model…)
Little differences in prompts make a huge deal in the output.
I dunno. It is possible to use these models for dumping crazy shit you are going through. But don’t kid yourself about their output and aggressively find ways to stomp out things it has no real way to authoritatively say.
With AI, as we currently understand it, we may have stumbled upon being able to replicate a part of the layer of our brain that provides the "reason" in humans., and a very specific type of "reason" a that.
All life has intelligence. Anyone who has spent a lot of time with animals, especially a lot of time with a specific animal, knows that they have a sense of self, that they are intelligent, that they have unique personalities, that they enjoy being alive, that they form bonds, that they have desires and wants, that they can be happy, excited, scared, sad. They can react with anger, surprise, gentleness, compassion. They are conscious, like us.
Humans seem to have this extra layer that I will loosely call "reasoning", which has given us an advantage over all other species, and has given some of us an advantage over the majority of the rest of us.
It is truly a scary thing that AI has only this "reasoning", and none of the other characteristics that all animals have.
Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos and Peter Watts Blindsight have different, but very interesting takes on this concept. One postulates that our reasoning, our "big brains" is going to be our downfall, while the other postulates that reasoning is what will drive evolution and that everything else just causes inefficiencies and will cause our downfall.
ok, I will be the dumbass here - I am a retired software engineer who has not used any of these tools, but when I as working on high volume web sites, all I wanted and needed was access to the log files. I would always have a small terminal session open to tail and grep for errors for the areas I was interested in. Had another small window to tail and monitor specific performance values. Etc.
I do not know how this concept would work in these agentic environments, but would seem useful, in an environment that has a lot of parallel things going on, with a lot of metrics that could be useful, you would want to have multiple monitors that can be quickly customized with standard linux utilities. Token usage, critical directory access, etc.
This, in conjunction with a config file to define/filter out the log stream should be all that's needed to provide as much or as little detail that would be needed to monitor how things are going, and to alert when certain things are going off the rails.
He is an equal opportunity a-hole, though my personal feeling is that he looks up to Putin, and wants to be like him
Some things he has done that Putin is probably not fond of:
Javelins in his first term, I believe that was the time the us supplied military weapons to Ukraine. These weapons made a big impact during the invasion
Tried to get Europe off of Russia gas, making very public warnings about depending on Russia. This was first term
Tried to get Europe to invest heavily in thru military, first and second term
Syria, Iran and Venezuela, all allies of Russia, especially Iran for military technology and Venezuela as part of its shadow fleet.
Strongly disagree. If you look into the details, you'll find he never actually intentionally hurt Russia.
>Javelins in his first term, I believe that was the time the us supplied military weapons to Ukraine.
Trump was always reluctant about it and actually got himself into yet another impeachment inquiry for withholding part of this congressional aid package, because Zelenskyy did not want to investigate Hunter Biden. He wasn't able to overcome congress, but he did manage to limit Javelin use for western Ukraine only, were Russia was not active back then.
>Tried to get Europe off of Russia gas
That goes into the aforementioned category of things he said but never acted on. Russia caused Europe to actually move away from Russian gas in the end.
>Tried to get Europe to invest heavily in thru military
Same category and same answer. Could also be seen as his start of dismantling NATO from the inside, which seems to have been his (and ofc. Putin's) ultimate goal from the very beginning - which in turn dates back all the way to the 1980s, when Trump bought anti-NATO advertising in the New York Times after visiting Russia. So it's not even that far fetched to accuse him (or his handlers) of long term schemes.
>Syria
The US had troops there for a veeeery long time, but rarely threw hands with the regime under any US admin. After all, this was mostly about curbing IS. Putin apparently never really cared about Syria in the end either. They were just an alternate location for a warm water Navy port to them, which became obsolete once they took over Crimea. Assad got to feel that pretty hard.
>Iran
They were allied, but Iran actually started going against Russia in 2023 because Putin supported the UAE claim on the Strait of Hormuz. It's all been downhill since then and the eventual US military strike was definitely pro-Israel, not anti-Russia.
>and Venezuela
They literally halted the immediate seizure after one of those "shadow fleet" ships suddenly displayed a Russian Flag. This was always more about hurting Venezuela and they explicitly tried to handle Russia with appeasement.
>Sanctions
Not sure what you mean here. Safe for one pointless act on oil companies that were already heavily sanctioned, all relevant sanctions came under the Biden admin. He famously did not put tariffs on Russia, despite putting them on basically every other country in the world (allied or not).
The article was written by "Europe’s preeminent research institute for global economic affairs" which is based in Germany. Europe, and Germany, saw a significant drop in its trade to the US since the tariffs started. Seems like they care.
While consumers are paying for pretty much the entire tariff (according to the article), the volume what they are buying has "collapsed" (according to the article).
Consumers are just buying from other sources (domestically or otherwise) or not buying because it is no longer worth it.
There are a lot of reasons why these tariff's are bad, but economically, it is not a bad thing for people not to buy things they do not need, or to buy them from a domestic producer. Consumer spending actually increased last year, and inflation is low.
I feel that many of the reactions to this paper is misplaced. To be upfront, I am not a fan of tariffs because I am pro free trade, pro capitalist, and feel that tariffs do not promote good will between countries.
First of all, the summary of the article (I did not read the article) clearly states that foreign exporters did not eat the tariffs, instead they held their prices, American consumers paid for the tariffs, and that trade volumes collapsed.
"trade volumes collapsed" - so, Americans did not buy foreign goods that they did not need/want at those prices, or found an alternative (presumably American) product to substitute. American consumer spending increased in 2025 and inflation settled down to a reasonable level. It seems that consumption shifted to domestic products.
That does not appear to be a good outcome, economically.
.
Second, tariff's are a tax. No sh-t. But so are VAT taxes, which are very high throughout many countries, and no one seems to believe they are the downfall of these countries. You can argue which is "better" or "fairer", but from the consumer point of view, VAT makes everything more expensive and tariffs make only foreign goods more expensive. You can say that VAT forces everyone, foreign and domestic to compete and be more efficient, while tariffs penalize foreign production and rewards domestic production, even if some domestic production is less efficient. But both are taxes, and at least the American consumer can choose whether or not to pay that tax.
While I disagree with tariffs, and especially disagree with how they are being wielded, the economic effect that they have had on Americans in 2025 is to shift away from foreign imports, buy more domestic products, and they have not increased inflation. Neither did the tariffs on Tr-mps first term on China.
If a 20% VAT was instituted, I would think that that would have had a much larger "tax" effect, and would have taken away peoples choice on whether or not to pay that tax. Yet, the VAT would be considered "good".
I think the biggest issue here is the serious negative impact on our relationships with our allies.
I have done a lot of research into this area. Obesity and other self inflicted health issues are definitely a factor, but not, by far, the whole picture.
Our cost per service is 2-4x or more, and the larger reliance on specialists creates significant complexity and even more costs. So, we do spend 2x, but we get 1/3 to 1/4 of "care" per dollar. In other words, we get less actual care. And the care is biased to fixing things as opposed to preventing things. And it is also biased to those who are wealthier.
Some of the cost drivers:
- Administration is 25% of costs, far less in other countries. Insurance company profits and complex administration with confusing and overlapping methodologies that obfuscate costs and comparisons.
- Capital costs are 25% of costs, far less in other countries. Multiple, private, and overlapping hospitals demand more capital and private capital with its expected returns
- Doctor compensation is 2x to 4x more, nursers 2x. Specialists here get truly rich, not true in other countries.
So, quite a lot of the extra spend is not efficient, and goes to insurers, owners of hospitals, and doctors.
I also have personal experience. To get a simple ultrasound, you are talking about $450 for a primary care visit to get a referral for a $650 specialist to get a $1000 ultrasound ($800 scan plus $200 reading), to get a $650 follow-up visit with the specialist to discuss the results. That is almost $3,000 of actual out of pocket costs to me, with a good insurance plan ($2K per month for a couple), the "claimed" costs were significantly higher. MRI and CT are even higher. Similar for a broken ankle, which cost me over $4000 out of pocket.
I am, relatively speaking, well off compared to average, and was able to do this, but that hurt, and significantly disincentivizes me in the future.
Our health system is broken, and pumping more money into only makes it worse.
It's neither, your outcomes are poorer because access is not uniform. If you can afford it, US healthcare is the best in the world, but if you can't you basically don't get it (or at least, you don't get it until the problems are bad enough it's an emergency and you get saddled with life-crushing debt for the bare minimum to stabilise you from the ER)
I did not recognize her name, but after doing some research, I am impressed by her work, and do not have an issue with her getting the prize.
However, her accomplishments were also clear last summer, and I feel it would have been far more appropriate to give her the prize last year. Instead, it went to an organization that has been around for 70 years. While they have done great work, there was nothing they did specifically in 2024 that stood out, at least that I could find. So, clearly, Machado was not an obvious choice, at least last year.
Also want to add that I don't think Trump should have gotten it, simply because it is far too early to tell if the current "middle east peace plan" will actually turn out to be more than just fanfare.
A better statement would have been to have no peace prize this year.
Did not realize this, you are correct. I thought nominations were accepted until late in the year since so many people were "nominating" Trump, even before the middle east thing.
But I am confused, Obama got his prize in 2009, which would mean he did not receive it for anything he did as president, and before that he was only domestically focused, afaik.
edit - I also see from other comments that people were placing bets on trump for the prize, which would not make sense if he had to be nominated by 1/31
I try to focus on results. Things like an app that does what you want, data and reports that you need, or technical things like setting up a server, setting up a database, building a website, etc.
I have also found it useful for feedback and advice, but only once I have had it generate data that I can verify. For example, financial analysis or modelling, health advice (again factual based), tax modelling, etc, but again, all based on verifiable data/tables/charts.
I am very surprised on what Claude is capable of, across the entire tech stack: code, sysadmin, system integration, security. I find it scary. Not just speed, but also quality and the mental load is a difference of kind not quantity.
Personal advice on life decisions/relationships ? No way I would go there.
It is also good for me to know that the tools I have built, the data I have gathered, and my thinking approach places me as one of the most intelligent developers and analysts in the world.