I was primarily discussing written language in my post, as that's easier to speculate on.
That said, if most people turn into hermits and start living in pods around this period, then I think you would be in the right direction.
1,231 karma · joined July 3, 2015
That said, if most people turn into hermits and start living in pods around this period, then I think you would be in the right direction.
As LLM use normalizes for essay writing (email, documentation, social media, etc), a pattern emerges where everyone uses an LLM as an editor. People only create rough drafts and then have their "editor" make it coherent.
Interestingly, people might start using said editor prompts to express themselves, causing an increased range in distinct writing styles. Despite this, vocabulary and semantics as a whole become more uniform. Spelling errors and typos become increasingly rare.
In parallel, people start using LLMs to summarize content in a style they prefer.
Both sides of this gradually converge. Content gets explicitly written in a way that is optimized for consumption by an LLM, perhaps a return to something like the semantic web. Authors write content in a way that encourages a summarizing LLM to summarize as the author intends for certain explicit areas.
Human languages start to evolve in a direction that could be considered more coherent than before, and perhaps less ambiguous. Language is the primary interface an LLM uses with humans, so even if LLM use becomes baseline for many things, if information is not being communicated effectively then an LLM would be failing at its job. I'm personifying LLMs a bit here but I just mean it in a game theory / incentive structure way.
I've see some argue that a hypothetically buggy router would somehow be less likely to fail if NAT was used but really, that could be equally said about bad port formatting defaults, which have in fact happened. Complexity is what increases the likelihood of bugs at the end of the day.
NAT is just an addressing hack, a weirdly complex way of indirectly routing to local addresses. It only influences what is written on the envelope, not how that envelope is processed at the post office.
This trips up a lot of people, and I think it's because NAT was probably their first real exposure to networking. When that happens, you end up building all your mental models around NAT as the baseline, even though NAT itself is really just a workaround for address space limitations.
What's interesting is that someone with no networking background who thinks of it like a postal system (packets are letters that get forwarded through various routing centers from source to destination) would actually have a more accurate mental model of how IP networking fundamentally works. The NAT-centric view we all learned first can actually make the basics harder to understand, not easier.
My point is simple: the utility infrastructure is the hard part. The silicon sitting on raised floors is disposable and will be obsolete in a few years. But the power substations, fiber connections, and water infrastructure? That takes years to permit and build, and that's where the real value is.
Building that infrastructure (trenches for water lines, electrical substations, laying fiber) is the actual constraint and where the long term value lies. Whether they're running GPUs or something else entirely, industries will pay for access to that utility infrastructure long after today's AI hardware is obselete.
You're lecturing me about evaporative cooling efficiency while completely missing the point.
So they're sitting on real estate with access to massive amounts of water, electricity, and high bandwidth network connections. Seems like that combination of resources could be useful for a lot of other things beyond just data centers.
Like you could probably run desalination plants, large scale hydroponic farms, semiconductor manufacturing, or chemical processing facilities. Anything that needs the trifecta of heavy power, water infrastructure, and fiber connectivity could slot right in.
Groq is more of a hardware focused company.
They're not killing it, they're merging it into Android. Makes sense. Android already does everything ChromeOS does, it just needs better desktop input support. Google said this was to compete with iPads, which only reinforces my point.
> Also Windows is increasing in its share again.
Short-term fluctuations don't change the long-term trend. We're talking about where things are headed over the next decade vs where it once was
> Maybe that is due to companies that want AI in there systems.
My company went all-in on Copilot, but I'm not seeing this translate to more Windows usage. Copilot works fine on Macbooks, and that's what most people here use. When management gets excited about it, they talk about Outlook and Teams integration. Nobody cares about Windows-specific features. What does OS integration even buy you? Access to local files that are already in the cloud anyway? I'm using Copilot on my company-issued Ubuntu laptop right now. And honestly, the fact that IT at a massive, conservative corporation even started offering Ubuntu as an option says a lot about where things are headed.
Microsoft will be fine, but I'd bet on Windows declining over the next 10 years, not growing.
Windows is actually terrible for non-technical users now. The constant pop-ups, nagging messages, and decision prompts create genuine anxiety. People don't know what they're clicking on half the time. Yet somehow most technical people I talk to haven't caught on to this.
Look at what younger generations are actually using: Chromebooks in schools, Google Drive instead of Microsoft Office. Even people who legitimately need Office aren't on Windows anymore, they're on Macbooks. That's the case at my company anyway.
At this point Windows is really just gamers, engineers who need CAD, and office workers stuck on it from inertia. There's nothing inherently attracting new users to the platform anymore. I honestly don't know who their primary audience even is at this point.
So I guess I'm morally obligated to use LLMs specifically to reject this framework? Works for me.
So considering that, I suspect the loss of life would increase in the long run.
The best and cheapest weapons are the ones never used, but making no weapons at all is the most expensive choice in the end.
I've tried many kinds of the imported European cheese, I enjoy the variety and gimicky stuff, one noteworthy one was this coffee cheese which was surprisingly tasty. Ultimately it sits right next to an equally diverse array of domestic cheese brands which are of the same quality. "New York Steakhouse" usually makes my favorites.
However Kraft and Velveeta are usually in their own section with the sealed imported cold cuts that taste like plastic. It would be ignorant for me to judge Euros on those but I guess many Euros do exactly that when they see Kraft? It's like space food. Real cheese is purchased at the deli counter or in chunks.
In the end, regardless of technical understanding, people will always shop around on price if the feature set is similar enough I suppose.
Your last point is even more confusing, why would the fact that chedder and blue cheese originate from England have anything to do with this? It's like random trivia you interlaced here, it's very strange. I can't seem to grok it.
Since it has a public API, I can easily make a custom frontend if I ever want to. Most social media does not offer this or tries to lock you into their shitty ecosystem.
I basically just treat it as unencrypted, but the pretend encryption features at least puts the company in a position where blatantly selling data would be a liability. In this respect, I place it on the same level as WhatsApp. Because even if WhatsApp has solid encryption, all it takes is one forced update from Meta to undo all that. They are like the inverse of each other.
My uncle is the only one I know who refused to use Telegram, insisting Signal was better and because he didn't want to use something with vague connections to Russia. Yet even he did not actually use Signal, and simply insisted if we should all switch to something it's either that or he sticks to SMS. So well, when I couldn't sell Signal to anyone else, Telegram it is, sorry uncle, but Verizon is pretty transparent about how they sell all my data.
This involves having it identify all potential keywords and distinct entities, determine their approximate gender (important for languages with ambiguous gender pronouns), and then perform a line-by-line analysis of each chapter. For each line, it identifies the speaking entity, determines whose POV the line represents, and identifies the subject entity. While I didn't need or expect perfection, Gemini Flash 2.5 was the only model I tested that could not only follow all these instructions, but follow them well. The cheap price was a bonus.
I was thoroughly impressed, it's now my go-to for any JSON-formatted analysis reports.
When humans carved words into stone, the words and symbols were often suited for the medium, a bunch of straight lines assembled together in various patterns. But with the ink, you get circles, and elaborate curved lines, symbols suited to the movement patterns we can make quickly with our wrist.
But what of the digital keyboard? Any symbol that can be drawn in 2 dimensions. They can be typed quickly, with exact precision. Human language was already destined to head in a weird direction.
Still, perhaps saying "copy" was a bit misleading. Influence would have been more precise way of putting it. After all, there is no such thing as a "normal" writing style in the first place.
So long as you communicate with anything or anyone, I find people will naturally just absorb the parts they like without even noticing most of the time.