danlitt

Excited to see the price of every other product they offer triple for no reason.

> Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists"

If that's not "turning your brain off", what is?

By that logic every appeal to the truth is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just one more hit. Just one more hit. We're gonna make it this time. It's going to the moon....

If we are going to be honest we should be completely honest. "We want to increase our profits and hence we choose to lay people off."

Is there any evidence of people actually using it?

> By 'business perspective,' I mean it's immoral but profitable.

So, the purest form of evil there is?

> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.

They are indeed just as bad as each other. I think Microsoft just got unlucky and had a lot of bad-PR emails leak. If that had happened at Apple he'd probably have someone killed.

I presume you mean "the maximum physical limit of bad ethics" rather than any particular ethical standard.

Omarchy is basically just Arch with a bunch of configuration. It's not a particularly useful project, and the author is noted fascist DHH. So probably not worth your time.

I don't think there is a technocratic solution to this problem. Very rich people are using their money to DDoS the internet, for no good reason. We just need to identify these people and fine or imprison them until they stop doing it. Residential proxy providers would be a good start.

> it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to generate the weights

It cost hundreds of billions of dollars to generate the training data, they just didn't get paid.

I think the sheer magnitude of the economics have made the scales fall from a lot of people's eyes. For decades people put stuff on the internet for free on the assumption it was "not worth" anything. It turns out that as soon as that commons can be enclosed, we can marshal hundreds of dollars for every single living human, to pay for this commons to be repackaged. The money is there, and we're happy to spend it, we just won't spend it on you.

If LLM training is found to be a fair use (looks likely), no license will help.

Not Stalin: https://klangable.com/blog/quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-ow...

I think this post finally convinced me shells are awful and should be avoided.

This does not sound like an accurate description of "rational agents". A rational agent may value something less because of a perceived second-order effect (e.g. "If I accept a price hike, there will be more price hikes in the future"). There's nothing non-rational about that.

In general, the "rational agent" abstraction is so flexible it can represent almost any real-world behaviour (which is why it's a bad model, not that humans are fundamentally irrational in some way).

That specific conclusion is unaffected, but that doesn't make it okay. If they used fake numbers, but the conclusion were still the same, you presumably wouldn't think that was okay either?

I had to look 3 times to see what you meant. That's pure evil!

Interesting fact, but the slop filler is distracting.

I don't think it makes sense to say you "made money" when you still have an open-ended liability active.

This joke only works if you actually impose a cost on AWS of 1.7 billion. If they just serve you a bill for no reason, it's still your problem.

This presumes that it is reasonable for a seller to remove the capacity in principle to buy the digital good. They might refuse ever to sell a copy again, and only permit renting it. Since copyright grants a long monopoly this opens up scope for crazy market distortion - you could, for instance, delete the Beatles discography from the entire world until the price doubles. This tends not to happen, but there is nothing preventing it, and it seems inherently wrong.

That is not an innocent explanation, any more than someone breaking into your house to adjust your thermostat.

Same reason people give postgres, php, or any other program a user account.

The comment I'm replying to said "no skill is involved", not "less skill is involved".

I don't understand this comment at all. "At least 1000 words" would require at least the skills of writing decently & writing a moderate amount based on little. I get that getting to exactly 1000 requires some skill, but how on earth is that the only skill involved?

Did you read beyond the first sentence? This reply makes no sense if you read the whole comment.

> 3d printing control laws that are being passed in NY

The "don't print guns" laws? What lobby would that be? I actually agree that the US is very vulnerable to lobbying and that 3d printing restrictions are dumb, but I have no idea how you connected the two.

> i dont think there is any software on the planet that i would consider "truly life changing"

I don't think there is any software on the planet that has accumulated 1.5 trillion dollars of otherwise-useful money!

Please explain. That is exactly what the linked case established.