I don't think anyone is using LLMs for those conversations. A lot of those replies are bots. There's a market for reddit accounts that have a solid human-looking reply/post history, to be used for astroturf marketing, so some organizations set up bots to grow such accounts. There probably are also just people who overuse "Honestly? [statement]" sentences. I've spoken to such people in person before LLMs.

> borrowing ordinary mannerisms of speech that aren't necessarily egregious

That's how a trope starts. When a minority of writers are using a particular pattern, it's personalized style. When a majority of writers in a genre adopt the same personalized style, it's a trope.

We find AI tropes especially annoying because there are three frontier LLMs producing a sizable chunk of text we read (maybe even a majority of text, for some people) lately. It would also be annoying if a clique of three humans were producing most of the text we read; we'd start to find their personal styles annoying and overdone. Even before LLMs, that was a thing that happened in some "slop" fiction genres where a particularly active author would churn out dozens of novels per year in one style (often via ghostwriters, but still with a single style and repetitive plot pattern).

"hacker" news is owned and operated by a large and wealthy venture capital firm

we all know, pehaps they should give up the name and call it vcnews, since so many people get triggered when hacker topics are discussed here.

No it's not. It's based on how much he "made" in the first half of 2020, mostly originating from gains in Amazon's stock, in a period specifically selected to inflate the number. If you actually want to display how much Bezos made since the user opened the page, there are many public APIs to get live stock data and you could show the actual live gain/loss. But that wouldn't really support the point you're trying to make, since there would be days where he actually loses more money than most people ever see.

Also anyone who owns Amazon stock in their investment accounts - or who owns the S&P 500 - is also making and losing money when Jeff Bezos makes or loses money, for exactly the same reason.

For most tasks it's not necessary. For hairy tasks, it's often nice to switch and pay 10x the cost to complete the task with 10x less intervention.

He kept 80%. The other 20% is owned by 8 different VCs. Seems like he's still in control. There's value in using other people's money instead of your own because it might make him less emotionally risk-averse in how he manages it.

Do you mean the value in this specific tool, or in the concept? You don't need a dedicated tool to store agent session transcripts and link them to commits. This can be accomplished by a 10-line bash script.

Would declining to let you through security actually be a "penalty" (legally speaking), though? There are a ton of things you need to show papers for in the US; I can't imagine that all of them were pre-approved by the OMB.

> More features can always be added to software

How does that make it different? More features could always be added to most buildings. You could keep adding rooms onto the side, update the floors/ceilings/walls every year to stay trendy, add a water feature, expand the basement with a tunnel network, etc.

I find it interesting how people say "The US" to refer to groups under the US government that are often completely at odds with the interests of the actual US public. There are virtually no Americans who want our government to be acting in the interests of arms manufacturers except the arms manufacturers themselves and the politicians they pay.

How many groups do you know in other countries that you refer to by name rather than the name of the country and the general idea that the government of that country must represent at least at some significant level the will of it's people?

We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.

We the people are responsible for the government we get.

Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.

It is supposed to be a "liberal democracy". "You" have killed millions to promote this idea and now trying to disown it.

If elections were held today, regardless of who the candidates were, the GOP candidates would receive roughly half the votes. Just like they always do. It's not like there's a regime in place totally at odds with the broader will of the people. It's only at odds with about half of the people.

C'mon, what a lame excuse. Well then, show us that democracy works and vote for a goverment which doesn't? If I follow your reasoning, you've just demonstrated that democracy is a failure, because the US government acts in the interests of arms manufacturers since a very long time, no matter if Dems or Reps are in power.

Our democracy is clearly disfunctional. I believe corporate money has played a big role to make it worse.

Why wouldn't Americans want government to act in the interest of their companies (e.g. arms manufacturers)? That's more into GDP, more jobs etc. Unless it takes a business away from other companies, of course. But any American should be glad that, say, Raytheon won a big contract over some company in another country.

It gets annoying how americans try and wash their hands of everything their government does. You live in a democracy. Freedom comes with responsibility. The average american voter is at least partially to blame.