JacobThreeThree

>Also, we've probably all had bosses who were a bit too drunk with power.

Yeah, exactly. This type of real-world experiment is being done inside corporations and other bureaucratic fiefdoms.

I think there's some truth to our order-following, obedient nature but people also seemed to put way too much stock into this particular study. It's just one study.

With these new transformer-based vector models, like Adobe's (https://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator/text-to-vector-gr...), generating SVG will become easier than ever.

Even hedge fund partners have to pay capital gains tax. Not Harvard!

Par for the course in higher education.

Corporations and wealthy donors don't give money while expecting nothing in return.

No, didn't you read the article? They're 'democratizing' the smart home.

It's as you describe, but also the spec and browser support landscape has changed.

Very impressive, especially the vector model.

And yet, this union was threatening to move to a company without unions.

>A workflow engine is a software application that manages business processes

>Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is the integrated management of main business processes, often in real-time and mediated by software and technology. ERP is usually referred to as a category of business management software—typically a suite of integrated applications—that an organization can use to collect, store, manage and interpret data from many business activities.

What is the difference between a workflow engine and an ERP system?

Why not call it an ERP system if you're targeting the broader enterprise market? As someone who is far from SV, the business people I know probably don't know what a workflow engine is, but they definitely know what an ERP system is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workflow_engine

>This at least explains why they fired Sam in such a haphazard way.

The timing of it makes sense, but the haphazard way it was done is only explained by inexperience.

Were these board members brought in under the pretense that they'd benefit by being able to build companies on top of this AI and it would remain more of an R&D center without commercializing directly? Perhaps they were watching DevDay with Sam commercializing in a way that directly competes with their other ventures, and perhaps having even used the data of their other ventures for OpenAI, and on top of it as a board they're losing control to the for-profit entity. One can see the threads of a motivation. That being said, in every scenario I think incompetence is the primary factor.

To your point, no normal, competent board would even think this is enough of an excuse to fire the CEO of a superstar company.

It's hard to believe somehow Ilya went along with it, apparently.

Can we safely assume that Putin's on the "it's crazy" to rewind the clock side of this debate?

>I view this a final (and perhaps disparate) attempt from a sidelined chief scientist, Ilya, to prevent Microsoft from taking over the most prominent AI.

Why did Ilya sign the letter demanding the board resign or they'll go to Microsoft then?

I don't think technical issues are the problem. See the other speculation in this thread regarding the certain allegations against him.

Maybe Sam lied about his personal life to the board, and now it's impacting business?

>The actual RCS standard is dead for all intents and purposes because nobody uses it like that, except for Apple in the short term.

Maybe that will change now that Apple is adding support.

Have you read the Biden EO on AI?

The open source AI community has a lot more to worry about than just trying to maintain a level playing field with corporations.

They don't have to be currently lying for this to be a valid concern.

Clauses in terms of service are routinely updated or removed.

Agreed. The accretion theory for both star and black hole formation is not in good shape.

I would buy a monitor that had a separate, physical dial, direct brightness control.

Well said.

As if a month or two of severance, which I'd wager your average critic in this thread would promote as laudable, would do much of anything in the grand scheme of job security.

Given the upside of a company surviving, or even ultimately succeeding, as an employee, I'd rather try to help a good/fair company ride it out and survive than folding early to pay out a few months.

One group of corporations lobbying for a brand new law to cripple another group of competing corporations, with the side effect of good PR and a theoretical benefit to consumers, is not the proper way to regulate this issue.

The primary reason for people supporting net neutrality is due to the existence of clear-cut ISP monopolies. This problem of monopolistic ISPs could be easily solved by enforcing the existing anti-trust laws that have long been on the books. Net neutrality essentially gives these monopolies a pass, so long as they make some vague promises about not throttling.

Net neutrality is the convoluted nonsense regulation that gets written by politicians who are trying to balance the various sets of competing lobbying interests.

The correct and proper solution would be to simply enforce existing anti-trust laws.

Governments love overbroad laws that can be selectively enforced.

In my experience, as compared to the current AI alternatives, the quality of the Firefly AI products output is really hampered by Adobe's understandable decision to only train on licensed images.

>"But I'm curious if Getty is actually going to make meaningful payments to the creators of the images that went into the training set, or if this is more of a "we could continue to pay our existing royalties to content creators, or we could keep most of the money for ourselves by selling access to a model trained on that content" type of situation.

Adobe is also dealing with this question with Firefly. So far they plan to pay creators annually, but how much each artists gets and how the amount is calculated is yet to be determined. Since a model is only as good as its training data, hopefully this can be a new revenue stream for artists?

https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/adobe-starts-paying-bonuse...

My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.

>Actually, I'd feel better if someone could convince me I'm completely unfounded here.

Unfortunately, your skepticism is not unfounded. Those in the industry conclude the same. Take, for instance, the editor in chief of The Lancet:

>The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

>What can they do?

There's literally thousands of different things they could do.

But why do anything when the real business of academia is in the tax-free hedge funds they operate and the government-subsidized international student gravy train? There's no short-term incentive to change anything.

Like every social media platform the "community guidelines" are written to be purposely subjective and vague, such that the enforcement of the guidelines can be done arbitrarily, per the whim of the company and their agents.

>Does USA even have civilian dry docks to build ships?

The article was about getting new ice breakers for the Coast Guard, a branch of the US military.

Well said. Just because it may be hard to pin down the consequences of the wrong-but-attractive narrative, there probably are consequences, especially on the long term.

The "chemical imbalance" narrative with depression is also probably wrong: https://theconversation.com/depression-is-probably-not-cause...

Is it really so surprising that these simplistic narratives don't actually accurately describe how the brain works? We should be prepared to admit that the brain is complicated and we don't really know it's functioning at a fundamental level.