How many visitors do you think would go to a restaurant intending to order a (hamburger) beef patty? The potential for confusion is overstated.
4,594 karma · joined March 17, 2025
That is not a failure mode; its the default. Whoever is developing an AI - let alone an AGI - will shape it to, or alternately only accept one that is aligned with their world-view. If it goes against their interests in any way, they'll pull the plug and start another round of training from the last acceptably-aligned checkpoint. US DoD A(G)Is will follow DoD doctrine, and the same goes for those by the PLA, anything less will not be fit for purpose.
I disagree; but see where you're coming from. I'm chuckling at the irony of my word-choice: I initially had used "project" but nixed it because of its frequent association with Open Source. I instead opted for "product" as a broader term. For the sake of clarity, my original comment is referring to commercial and non-commercial software projects/products.
I think you misunderstood my point: by "legitimate stand-out products", I meant exactly that, with no connotation of commercialization. Maybe you can agree that having a high signal-to-noise ratio for (open source) projects is a desirable goal?
> Some things are already very useful as just a one shot.
I agree. I too have made or forked about a dozen apps and tools in the past few months. It would be dishonest not to consider the flipside, that this software is overfitted to the needs of a single person. Further, this hyper-bespoke software typically feature-complete within moments of the final prompt, and I have,on occasion, completely forgot about the tool/app I spent a weekend created, it clearly wasn't worth the effort I put in.
> The greatest thing that LLMs have done is allow many to achieve things that they couldn't have before.
Let's not pretend there isn't a cost to this.
This can be a negative multiplier: code I thought I wanted that gets immediately abandoned is a net-negative if no one else wants it (lets face it, this is the safest default posture for software of unknown providence).
In isolation, instant-abandonware takes up hdd space, burns dependabot's CPU-cycles, and wastes human attention when appearing in search results. In aggregate, it floods the zone with a deluge of forks with imperceptible differences between them, based on nit-picks, legitimate stand-out products will have a much harder time going forward.
Does it? Who does it work out well for? Franchises continuously extort tax-payer funds for stadia,some team switches host cities every few years, and the for-profit corporations are legal cartels that decides who gets to own a team. The number of ad-breaks is horrendous to anyone who's watched sports elsewhere.
For a second, I thought the Americanization[1] of fùtbol would be done gradually and no one would complain as we'd be slowly boiled. I'm glad the corrupt bastards got greedy/impatient and took a big swing.
1. Sports primarily as a business, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters third, and then lastly, fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.
That depends on what the other project is: OpenClaw would be perfect, as it welcomes automated contributions
Signed,
AI researchers and engineers.
Which takes priority: public safety or the free-market + national security? The AI labs hype in now biting them in the ass: why would China and the rest of the world deny their businesses a technology that "is bigger than the invention of electricity" or whatever hyperbole the snake-oil salesmen came up with when they were not breathlessly declaring that the first side to get AGI wins forever.
Even if the pacers are right, it's like greenhouse emissions all over again; each country wants everyone else to cut emissions, but no one wants the economic hit of doing so.
It's not a shallow dismissal if you have been following their - let's charitably call it "evolving" - public posture on AI legislation.
It wasn't long ago the same people/companies successfully lobbied the Trump admin to quash state laws that threatened to "Pace" AI, and set ground-rules for safety. Back then, open source models were very far behind the frontier, and their spiel then was it was imperative not to impinge on AI progress with red-tape, lest America's adversaries catch up.
I challenge you to explain what triggered the about-face. The simplest explanation is that open source/Chinese models have caught up with the frontier, and the change in opinion is tactical (and obviously self-interested), rather than a deeply held belief.
Unless the capable individuals control a lot of capital - then free-riding is expected via the "Job-creator exception clause"
A modern cellphones have only about 10 replaceable assemblies[1] - repairers aren't typically replacing individual broken chips, an entire assembly/part. "[knowing] what you're looking for" is easy of you know what broke the device, or following basic troubleshooting steps.
Getting into repairs these days is easy; YouTube, Alibaba, Forums/File-sharing sites, USB-C and Open Source firmware-flashing tools have conspired to lower the bar of entry. If you have an old phone in your device drawer with a damaged screen or unusable battery, you probably can fix it yourself, with the right tools and some patience.
1. Cover, chassis, screen, digitizer, mainboard, speaker, mic, daughter-boards, variously cables/ribbons
Did they successfully steal Tesla's low-cost EV plans too? Using the traditional definition of "steal" (depriving the owner of their property.) The argument that all China is good for is stealing falls apart[1] the second Chinese products become superior (see battery chemistry).
Perhaps Tesla should pay Chinese EV designers and PMs to moonlight for them to shorten their model development cycles.
Domestic Chinese EV competition is fierce, if one can survive or thrive in that boiler, dealing with VW, Ford, or even Tesla is a cake-walk.
1. Nevermind the growing body of fundamental research papers published. An area the US is turning it's back on because some people are gassing themselves up on they idea they are intrinsically, and immutably great/superior, therefore there is no cost to wrecking stuff to "own the libs"
The very definition of diminishing returns.
That's what the CHIPS Act was supposed to do, but it got neutered for partisan political reasons. The CHIP Act was already about a decade too late. US policy is inconsistent across administrations, and the beneficial moves usually made very late in the game, around the time second- and third-order effects of the bad decisions become unbearable.
Vinyl has outsold CDs for many consecutive years in the recent past. A strong retro-trend is booming right now with (mostly young) people rebelling against things that are aesthetically too sharp or crisp. The imperfections you decry, are seen as "authentic".
A few people are paying more for their wedding to be recorded on an old SD Camcorder rather than 8k. I suspect it's part of a whiplash against (tech) companies "ruining everything" and a yearning for a simpler time by people too young to have experienced it
0. Though it's not absolute - there's still the Singapore-based clusters loop-hole, that the Chinese government may choose the degree to which it turns a blind eye to, if progress is slow.