> If you hit its radar systems and/or damage the surface enough that landing becomes impossible, it becomes a sitting duck.
Both of these statements are wrong. Carriers generally rely on the radar systems of their escorts and their early warning aircraft much more than their own systems.
Similarly, even if the landing deck was damaged, again the carrier's escorts are its primary defense
True, but if you can't land planes, then you can only launch each plane once.
But I have a suspicion that the US navy practices damage control and recovery. Repairing a landing deck seems like a thing they would practice very extensively.
> This has always been the case where I work, long before AI.
And surely the place you work hired with this in mind. Many places have not, and yet now expect PMs who haven’t coded in years, or in many cases not at all, to contribute to their products’ codebases.
You’d be surprised with some long running complex tasks. I’ve seen Kimi spend 8 minutes (total) thinking on a task that Claude got done in 30 seconds. They both ultimately got it right, but Kimi spent ~$2.25 to Claude’s ~$0.20
> You can't build a business on per-seat subscriptions when you advertise making workers obsolete.
On the other hand I would argue that most workers' salaries are more like subscriptions than API type pricing (which would be more like an hourly contractor)
Wanting and being interested are not things in physical reality. We are also talking about an organization and not some aspiring teenager.
If someone wants something , the only measure of their interest and desire is how much resources and time they allocate to it. We’re not measuring Sam Altmans deepest desires and fantasies here
wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something, which carries the additional, nuanced, connotation of investment (or willingness to invest) towards this goal.
e.g. many people want to live an active healthy lifestyle, but fewer are actually interested in doing so.
> wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something
Are you sure? I've never heard of that difference. To be sure, I checked the definitions for each, and could find no such distinction. Maybe you could provide me with better sources than the ones I found?
reply