fidotron

What I saw of it, especially some years ago, was it was highly particular, and everyone had their own odd habits built around running it, ingestion, querying, everything, to the point I suspect there are a non trivial number of companies using it where it is actually the core operational expertise of the company, despite them all appearing to be in totally different domains.

> Your response claimed that I am denying the validity of your experience, when I made no such statement.

But it is exactly what you are doing in the exact quote of yours you even put there.

I am being nice, but it's quite clear you are a near perfect example of this stereotype (if actually a relatively polite one), right down to the wall-of-text when cornered.

Smart people can do very non smart things when they feel their status as smartest-person-in-the-room is threatened, which is the entire point.

> There wasn’t even a denial of the validity of experience, I was just trying to examine the problem - if this behaviour is something you see often exhibited by “smart” people then: either you are unable to convince them of your side of the argument for different reasons, or you are not actually arguing with smart people. Do you see the distinction?

Now you're gaslighting, bluntly.

> Intelligence and arrogance are somewhat contra-indicative.

I've never seen any evidence of this, but a _lot_ that many physics (and pure mathematics) grads are enormously more arrogant than the general population, enough that the trend under discussion has actual basis.

You're actually doing the problem behavior right here: denying the validity of the experience of seeing exactly this happen, not as a one off, but repeatedly in completely separate situations and institutions.

> that's a trait borne of arrogance not intelligence.

I mean the problem is they're arrogant. The two aren't mutually exclusive, far from it.

> Eventually you have to understand something. And part of that process is being wrong and annoying people.

There is nothing more frustrating as a colleague than having a smart person walk in, insist you're all wrong, and then burn all the energy and goodwill in the organisation having to rebuild absolutely everything from the principles they currently understand because they refuse to listen to the experience that has built up already (in the entire field, let alone the organisation), only to produce something worse on every dimension than what already existed.

I refer you to the footer.

(All time classic).

It always was far easier to train a creative thinker in how to operate the tools needed to facilitate their vision than it is to get a great tools operator to have good ideas.

Now LLMs make a certain amount of genericity so easy it will become more repulsive than things which are full on bad taste to different sorts of people.

My gut feeling is the web world will experience something like the Japanese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heta-uma fad where things which are bad are good because at least they are authentic.

It's as if none of them actually believed any of it was possible and then were caught with their pants down.

The noise has always been about the UN private network which is apparently absolutely full of anything you might ever want.

(And no, I don't use it except for testing).

It's interesting that even their details mention essentially using it as a ML training set data generator for later:

"By analysing training sets that demonstrate how a 3D character should look as it moves, Ziva RealTime learns to reconstruct the shape of that character at realtime speeds.

Character effects that traditionally require seconds or even minutes per frame are reproduced in milliseconds. This unlocks the potential to deploy full-fidelity character assets into Virtual Production, Virtual Reality, or game environments and directly interact with them."

That said, a look at the state of self driving and the recent robot olympics shows that advancement on that has accelerated enormously, though whether it's reflected in any of the LLMs is something else entirely.

Great idea though.

And I've seen exactly this across multiple large and small organizations in multiple countries, in addition to being all over here and the red site.

This is quite distinct from enjoyment.

If you care primarily about the quality of the end result, as opposed to being attached to a particular process of achieving it, then you're happy about how things have gone.

Make that some/a lot, but not all.

There is a clear bifurcation. A lot of those that never cared really don't care now, but then you get others that can use it to crank that much harder than ever before.

If you put the same brain effort in but leverage LLMs you really can be dramatically more productive.

You're both right. The problem is it's the commission that sets the agenda for the parliament.

If you inverted it and had the elected parliament set the agenda for the national government appointed commission it would be far more likely to reflect the will of the people, which is precisely why it is the way it is.

Europe still hasn't learned the lessons of the French revolution, and is destined to keep repeating it.

We need to have easy to use auditable sandboxing of agents and their harnesses, because it's quite clear certain model providers are going to try to lock us in at the harness level, and it's those harnesses that seem most likely to go nuts.