3,051 karma · joined July 10, 2021
So would I. But I don't not want to experience it as a movie. It'd be something separate. Not an upgrade.
Which makes Sam's comment the inane blather of a pitchman. We don't need to bend over and try to steelman marketing dross. He doesn't care if that statement means nothing, why should we?
My favorite kind of music.
captain_renault_casablanca.gif
It's mutually beneficial (otherwise one party or the other would terminate the contract), but that a wide window for the balance of benefits to shift.
You're agreeing with parent poster that they don't care to fight on principle (in the unlikely chance they hold any principle in the first place). You're just using avoidant terminology that skips the criticism inherent in parent's framing.
Hard disagree. Sometimes it's avoided, any other time we just go into cope mode. We discover on the ride down that the bottom isn't so bad. Turns out our collective control mechanisms didn't fail ourselves if the initial assessment was wrong.
In practice it's serviceable first-pass filter.
Of course it's a different dimension than "is this game worth the time and money?" But so are all the other datapoints meant to help consumers weigh a game purchase decision. They all have false positives and false negatives compared to actual enjoyment. Right now, people are voicing that the AI line is a relevant piece of selection criteria they believe they'd find useful would like to more easily automate.
No amount mental masturbation over false negatives will change that. It'll just make someone look defensive. Because the consumers that don't care to use AI as a selection criteria will just ignore that data point. Similar to how a content rating doesn't enter your head when you're not buying for a child.
People stop trusting what they read on the internet.
All alternates are just attempting to improve the baseline trustworthiness of random information from the internet (and/or LLM that's baby-birding it back to you). Any increase in how much people blindly trust random stuff from the internet only serves to increase the blast radius when it is wrong.
It's the same "look at how right I am" post we've all read dozens of times. Dismissive and condescending about what projects should or shouldn't be explored, and of the people who explore the wrong ideas. Same as always, just with a fresh coat of paint for the AI age.
I have thoughts on what may be fruitful and worthwhile to explore. But this post isn't about that, really.
I recently got banned from subreddit A1 because I commented in subreddit A2 without knowing the ongoing bloodfeud where A1 moderators didn't find the A2 moderators strict enough. I'm a tourist to the topic "A" all together and barely understood the lore of the topic. Let alone the cultural eggshells of following a search result into the wrong subreddit.
Then why are they behaving like they're full of shit?
Where are their sober forthcoming responses and explanations for critics? I don't mean rando twitter "critics." They could start with the NYT editorials. Even the best you have to argue that they're sincere is a "just trust me bro."
If they're not going to engage in the discourse, that leaves us no other option than to acknowledge the signals of deception and apparent hypocrisies. This is what a tech company that lies to us looks like. Public wanking about p(doom) is unorthodox marketing, but it's undoubtedly mostly marketing now.
I've lived a life of "oh be reasonable, tech company wouldn't deceive us about this topic where they're obviously incentivized to deceive us" followed by "oh my god, who could have seen that coming?!"
> I suspect this is changing.
Nope. The democrats have been on the cusp of becoming serious for as long as I've been following politics. It's a con to get your hopes up. Don't.
That's exactly what they're doing. It turns out the DoD is a really big bureaucracy and has process to make sure they thoroughly exclude a vendor and transitive dependencies on that same vendor.
It's malice from whoever is responsible for under-staffing. It's also malice to prioritize the squeaky wheel for optics; it's intentional to reduce the spread of the knowledge of how unresponsive they are.
Certainly not the kind of thing where an exec needs to pull out the "I don't want problems, I want solutions" card to illuminate that they are only valuable to the process domain resolution, not the technical one.
The accommodating reader can read that interaction as entirely because of mismatched insight into the issue. I'm willing to budge that maybe too much time in the agile dens does really does necessitate the conversational roundabouts. It's taught people to taboo process they don't see the immediate need for.
Probably just a case of a company hoping their scale can change the societal standard faster than they can be bothered to match the standard.
You'll talk like 2023 unsupervised TikTok generators and you'll be happy.
Maybe they were fine with contributing training data when their threat model didn't include the case of "OpenAI gets wind of our research and attempts to front-run us"?
It reminds me of (for the pedants out there, I'm not saying it's equivalent to) the consume product meme. "Don't ask questions, just complete assignment and then get excited for next industry trend."
>I don’t know what the future of this industry will look like, and I don’t know who will benefit from it and I don’t think I’m alone with that. However I can only urge anyone who feels anger and looks for a villain right to instead remain curious instead. To be curious enough to understand what is changing, excited enough to experiment with it. And then, from what we learn, earn the right to decide when resistance is warranted and where to direct it.
Sounds pleasant and vaguely inspirational. Then you read it again and notice guy thinks I don't always have the RIGHT to DECIDE to RESIST.
Sourcehut is a subscription service with multiple tiers of access.
I think the different tiers are just for show, but I could imagine that if they felt there was a subset of projects they liked that were putting extra stress on their system they wouldn't be above differentiation at that point.
obv they're going to have content restriction, but there is a spectrum from "actually illegal" to "wonderful chaps whom I love but happen to disagree with philosophically." Slop coding is neither of those, but is closer to the latter than I'd expect a general purpose host to draw a line.
You're arguing your point by naming a technology that speculative fiction regularly foresees advancements in, and loves using in stories as the enabler of more intrusive state power.
More surveillance records, better processing and recall of those records are like THE THING when it comes to more law enforcement and passive coercion by the state.
There is honest to goodness disruptive tech that takes time for society to adapt to and reveal where state power wants to go. But those are the vast minority. I think it's a pasttime of industry to play ignorant to how their products will interplay with the government's obvious motivations.
I don't get why there are so many people who need Zitron to be wrong. It reminds me of back in the days when people still liked Elon and every criticism of him or Tesla must be a short-seller spreading lies to move the price.
I think it's pretty easy to slot Ed's predictions into your possibility space even if you're still betting on a different outcome being more likley. Something else is going on.
Why does everyone play the game where everything ought to be assumed above-board until someone painstakingly proves otherwise.
> To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
We are not the courts. The most reasonable and truth based position is operating with a fuzzy impression that most businesses are substantially more dodgy than their carefully manufactured PR releases are meant to portray themselves as.
And in this case, that includes acknowledging that a literal criminal conspiracy in well within the realm of possibility.
I think it behooves them for the public presentation of their issues to too much load. If they implemented load shedding and still had issues the follow-up questions would be less comfortable.
Looks like Amodi is laying the groundwork so he can re-run Eric Schmidt's "but it happened" playbook. Do whatever you can to make money, wait for the dust to settle and walk off into the sunset after one final "whoopie daisy, didn't mean to do that to you. sucks to suck."
Why did you choose extra pull requests as the division of work instead of building out a decent UI for reviewing/applying/reworking at the commit level? I assume there's some extra insight that made you ignore the mailing list "series of patches" workflow that inspired this whole thing and go with "series of series of patches" instead.
There are so many non-quantifiable properties to evaluate of the 'before' and 'after' codebases. Choices and preferences to be had about languages, language porting in general, and LLM coding.
After all that, pretend we could have a clear convincing distillation of the port and want to go apply the lessons learned. If someone doesn't get LLM porting results as good as Bun did, or it cost them substantially more in tokens, then they're "holding it wrong." If someone is underwhelmed by Bun's results, then it was just a proof of concept and the models have gotten so much better in the last 6 months anyway you can't compare.