Whoever did this is simultaneously a wretched malcontent, and a creative genius.

This kinda gets philosophy-of-cognative-science-ey, but it kinda smells like "measuring a fish by its tree climbing ability". Or maybe like goodharts law.

There are many different kinds of smart, is the kind of smart they're measuring the one that will be relevant?

Again, I don't want to carry too much water for AI, but I also don't want to propagate arguments that also apply to other tools I like. Consider: externalizing memory. Without the tool you used to capture that memory, you're completely unable to function. Dependency on it reduces your ability to remember things yourself. By many measures, it makes your dumber and less productive. But I wouldn't personally consider taking notes to be detrimental.
So I want to be very careful when we make claims that externalizing some aspect of our cognition makes us worse somehow.

And show me where I said people were using AI to read it.

Because I was describing the class of reading material which is dry and unimaginative, to contrast your description of what reading does to peoples minds.

I was describing two classes of data: the kind that fit what your describe, and therefore people don't actually use AI on it, and dry technical data that doesn't grant the benefits you describe. I did not say if people use AI on the technical material, only that they don't use it with the enjoyable material.

So no, I didn't say that, and if you read it as carefully a you seem to expect everyone else but you too, then you'd have just shut up instead of doubling down embarrassingly.

Ah, I see. "Only" doesn't really make sense then, but that's fine lol

If that's what you thought that I said, then you have no right to judge people on their lack of intelligence or literacy.

The humour comes from the comedic irony of saying something so blatantly false. It only works with people secure in their friendship, and if they both appreciate comedic irony

I don't get it.

Why would they only see you if you see them first? Are you suggesting that they're avoiding you?

What about opensource self hosted AI?

There are still major ethical issues with how they get training data, but the problem with hijacking the economy and society seems resolved. I feel like I can more easily forgive the copyright theft for someone just fucking around in their homelab, replacing Google assistant.

Maybe I'm just bean-souping.

As much as it pains me to carry water for AI, do you think that people are replacing things they liked to do with AI?

Like... They were reading for pleasure, and then they had the AI read it for them instead?
That they were talking to their friends they enjoy speaking with, and then they had the AI talk to their friends instead?

Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?

Honestly for the love of sanity you should probably also stop using Lemmy, for similar reasons. Many of the large communities heavily censor, and many communities are super toxic.

Reddit is occasionally still useful for getting answers to questions because they actually have a user base to support niche subjects. I never post, but there is a good chance someone has already asked the question I have and there is an actual answer, unlike here.

I browse Lemmy like once a week, but I try to limit actually posting or commenting like once or twice a month, because the engagement is often so vitriolic that it causes anxiety and is generally bad for me. The benign communities are usually small and boring.

I agree with you for common CLIs that the model will natural have in its training set, but when building your own CLI it seems like the self-documenting nature and progressive disclosure of MCP would have a huge advantage.
With a cli you don't have the prefix cost, but your agent also doesn't know that the tool exists, what it's for, how to use it, etc. once you give it that information, then you have the same issues with prefix cost, right? Changing tools does break the prefix cache, but changing tools is a thing you can do. You can't change (model awareness of) CLI, and if you could then it'd also break the prefix cache, or you'd have tool instructions scattered throughout the context without structure.
Dumping to file is a harness thing, not a MCP thing. A harness will do the same with large terminal outputs.
Likewise setting up a new CLI can be complicated. I never see an agent try to install an mcp, but I also don't typically see it try to install a new CLI.

I don't see how mcp is any more a fixed set of tools than CLI is. It's just presented to the agent in a structured way, which is important for discovery and instruction following.

But yeah ease of chaining is certainly useful wrt CLI. That's a huge win for sure.

Starch.
Specifically, potato.
More specifically, fried somehow.