all the eng budget is spent on compute cost for ai?
this is a great way to allow inflation to implement pretty significant pay cuts
57 karma · joined October 26, 2021
this is a great way to allow inflation to implement pretty significant pay cuts
gold
while controversial, predictive text in gmail is actually useful, is very conservative relative to chatGPT, and has been around for quite a while.
predicting what measurements you want out of analytics is handy, and gives accurate information
google docs/drive uses ai to surface relevant docs based on time of day, audience, and frequency of editing. it works remarkably well.
google photos is mainly an ai product, and it's all-around amazing
google translate is an ai product and it's gotten pretty good over the years, though it's not without competitors
google's speech recognition is very good, and built in all over google products, though I never use it b/c i don't like talking to computers
....
i feel like this push is likely to lead to messiness. strategy messiness, messiness in ux, messiness in terms of new ai products not being vetted the same way they were before - allowing more inaccurate results to be presented to users.
maybe users will be ok with it, idk. i've appreciated the ai enhancements to google products so far, i think they've done a good job being even-handed. I hope they manage to keep their hands on the wheel.
regulation is what makes a market trustworthy. a trustworthy market is an efficient market.
anyway
instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences'
so i don't agree that 'the way it works is ... saying it should be against the law'
I disagree, and in no way am i trotting out Popper quotes. I am questioning your willingness to actually listen to people.
things that people do increase when there are more people. really unclear what your point is here, and the way you said it really makes you look mean.
In US terminology, whoever says "globalist propaganda" also says "I don't believe Trump lost the election in 2020".
The comments who say this make me think that, probably, le monde is an excellent publication.
There are other comments that say le monde is 'oligarchy-owned' and then suggest publications that take a more left-leaning stance.
This makes me think le Monde is kind of like the New York Times. In general, they know who buys their papers, but the journalism (journalism! - the opinion pages are not journalism by definition) that the NYT does is largely good. It gets the facts and it prints them, holds their own to a high standard, and does a thorough job.
Politically, the NYT pisses off the left and the right on the regular. Does le Monde do that too? Are the vocal advocates against le Monde trying to say 'go further into an echo chamber', or are there legitimate criticisms about the process of reporting that le Monde engages in? Do they get the facts wrong often or go to press too early with a story regularly?
Apparently the 90's-early 00's was a good time for le Monde -- that happens to be when I knew about it. What has happened since?
For instance, it talks about Putin's willingness to use "battlefield" nukes rather than "strategic" city-destroying nukes – betting that the West would immediately concede any war where a smaller nuke were deployed in the interest of avoiding escalation.
I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to finance, and to my uninformed eyes, this looks to me like a $25bln gain for Rosneft. Is that the case?