This particular person seems to be using LLMs for code review, not generation. I agree that the problem is compounded if you use an LLM (esp. the same model) on both sides. However, it seems reasonable and useful to use it as an adjunct to other forms of testing, though not necessarily a replacement for them. Though again, the degree to which it can be a replacement is a function of the level of the technology, and it is currently at the level where it can probably replace some traditional testing methods, though it's hard to know which, ex-ante.

edit: of course, maybe that means we need a meta-suite, that uses a different LLM to tell you which tests you should write yourself and which tests you can safely leave to LLM review.

There's no point in protecting one individual against an unconstitutional search that proves him guilty. The constitutional issue is the ability to have conducted the search in the first place. The only reason we suppress accurate, but unconstitutionally obtained evidence is to disincentivize the action in the future. This "good-faith exception" strikes that balance pretty ideally.

The defendants rights were violated, but there is no doubt about the legitimacy of the data, and what it implies. Police now know they cannot use this method in the future, so suppressing the evidence in this particular case does not disincentivize anything, as long as its made clear that it cannot be done in the future.

The loss of trust issue is the one I worry about most. However, it's also true that the key players who we've implemented tariffs against have had them against us for years, and we've simply absorbed that.

I don't like the mechanism he chose to implement them, or the sharpness with which they were imposed, but I do think implementing actual proper reciprocal tariffs phased in over a reasonable period of time was a good idea. And I agree with you re: the service/goods issue. Them excluding services in their trade deficit calculation is by far the dumbest part of this plan.

This has been a cornerstone of his campaigns since the beginning. I don't necessarily believe they understand the details, but I do believe they understood he would impose high tariffs, and still voted for him anyway. Tariffs weren't a throwaway line, or something. He repeated it everywhere he could.

I think it is true that most people don't understand the economic principles of tariffs, including most economists. But I do think the plan he's implemented largely comports with what he's consistently said he would do.

Yes, they are badly implemented, I agree. He is calling them reciprocal tariffs though, which implies he will lower them as they lower theirs. I don't think he's chosen a good way of estimating theirs, and so I don't think it's a particularly good policy, but reciprocal tariffs in principle are a good idea.

Even though his first pass crude approximation is stupid, it's really how other countries react, and how he reacts to them that will determine whether they behave like reciprocal tariffs or not.

There is a baked-in plan to test if they're going to work: they are formulaic, based on the trade deficit. Supposing that deficit falls, they will automaticlaly readjust downwards. I don't think the trade deficit (particularly restricted to goods, as they did it) is a good proxy for that, but it's also not completely untethered from reality.

Not retaliatory, reciprocal. Retaliatory tariffs are dumb. Reciprocal tariffs are the Nash equilibrium. Whether or not these particular tariffs are in fact reciprocal is something we could debate, though. At best they are a very crude approximation of reciprocal tariffs.

The reason for my "optimism" is that it's just as easy for him to undo this as doing it in the first place. If he keeps them in place as constructed for more than say, 3 months, without shooting them through with loopholes, then he might have a real unfixable problem on his hands, as businesses start to seriously reorient themselves. However, if over the next 3 months or so, he starts tactically peeling them back or being very "generous" with exemptions, the net economic impact could be relatively small, and maybe even moderately positive (depending on the details).

Fwiw I'd prefer the republicans win again, so my optimism is actual (not that I don't have substantial criticisms of the current admin's policies). However, it is refreshing to have a content-focused exchange on the internet about politics, so h/t to you :)

He's been articulating this policy for his entire campaign. Half the country voted for him. If you are saying that the details of its implementation are insane, then are you suggesting that Trump actually personally developed and scrutinized those details? Because I don't think any coherent theory of Trump would comport with that.

I do think a lot of the details are bad. But Trump is not exactly a details guy. And while I think they could have been better (by a lot, fairly easily), I do think they are an accurate, if crude, representation of the policy vision Trump has been consistently articulating for decades (he's been talking about tariffs and trade deficits like this since the 90s).

That's why you implement them reciprocally, to force anyone else implementing them to reduce theirs. Their problem is that the method they used to identify the tariff levels was, generously, crude. And also that it was implemented too sharply.

However, as a political tactic, the sharp implementation gives them breathing room to re-calibrate before the midterms. That comes at a real GDP cost, though.

This is a good take, but I think I can answer your question about the midterms. This is timed specifically for them. The drop we're seeing in markets right now isn't a pricing in of the tariffs, per se (at least, not yet), it's a pricing in of policy uncertainty that is going to lead to a near-term drop in investment.

However, because they are doing it so early, they will have time to recalibrate and bake in exemptions until the market / inflation is happy. Up to and including backing off of the policy entirely, if that ends up being necessary. As a political strategy, it is perfectly timed to allow Trump to "save the economy" from his own policies. This is true imo independently of what you may think about the policy as policy.

When it comes to the policy as such, recipirocal tariffs, conceptually, are designed to incentivize the overall global reduction in tariffs. So, as a headline, implementing "reciprocal tariffs" is actually favorable to free trade. However, there are some important details that they have fucked up, such as identifying tariffs with trade deficits in general, and in particular identifying them with trade deficits in goods only. That is really the component of the policy that doesn't make sense, and it is important.

Most likely, they will recalibrate and/or provide a lot of exemptions, particularly as the midterms approach. As a political tactic, I think it will work out fairly well, if they respond to the feedback appropriately - that's the big question though, and that uncertainty is the most significant reason for the market drop.

The term 'credit score' is sufficiently general to encompass literally all methods of comparing borrowers. You could certainly take issue with some specifics of how particular agencies calculate it, but the idea that there is some "alternative way of comparing borrowers" then I'd invite you to invent another formula for determining loan parameters, that does not boil down to a scalar value.

Loans involve the calculation of parameters. You can either choose those implicitly through personal knowledge, or explicitly through a scalar metric (credit score). There is no viable third option, and the first option is just a bad version of the second, in the end.

> Also when we talk about preventative measures, people going to a pill mill doctors to get a refill are already addicted, but what can have a long term impact is putting in the effort to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place, which means understanding how so many people who did not want to get addicted to opioids ended up that way.

This has changed over time. At first it was the pharmaceutical route, largely due to the shift in medical norms to prescribe opioids for chronic, not just acute, pain. Prescribing them for chronic pain is a near guaranteed recipe for addiction. However, I think things have changed in the past decade or so, with people largely moving straight to fentanyl and/or other illicit opioids. I don't think the pipeline is largely pharmaceutical in nature anymore.

> Portugal

Portugal is not the ringing endorsement that it is sometimes touted as. Some indicators have improved, some have worsened substantially:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...

Causality is hard to tease out here, but more importantly, all they're doing is decriminalizing it and offering methadone/buprenorphine maintenance treatments. And the effect on number of addicts has not been good:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru...

> Coca in Bolivia (I am on thin ice, I know too little, but they elected a coca grower as president)

Coca is really not anything. If you've ever chewed coca leaves, they're mildly stimulating. They're nothing like cocaine.

> I think there is plenty of evidence that a considered thoughtful approach to drugs is better

Considered, thoughtful approaches are always better! The question is, what are you considering and being thoughtful about. And the fact of the matter is that the most drug-liberal cities in the US have the worst drug problems, and so do the most drug liberal countries (like Portugal).

The countries that have the fewest problems with addiction are the harshest: Singapore, China, Japan. These things are not an accident. I'm not necessarily advocating adopting policies that harsh, just pointing out that they do actually work, whereas the liberal policies fail disastrously everywhere they're implemented. I'm in favor of criminalization, but only as a tool to force people into deferral/treatment programs. I don't want to see anyone actually put in jail for using drugs, unless they fail to complete their deferral program.

That was a very long time ago. I don't think the middle east was a significant producer of Opium during that time.