Look, you can declare that it is a scam all you like. Trumpet statements like this one: "Large language models still hallucinate, and they still make boneheaded errors; they still lack a proper concept of reality. They often produce workslop. A recent survey called The Remote Labor Index found that they could only do 2.5% of human tasks, and that is a massive overestimate"
It won't convince me because I HAVE BEEN USING IT, and IT HAS ACTUALLY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Hype (whether positive or negative) can be extremely powerful, but eventually it loses out to reality. It is certainly true that there are some people who have overhyped AI. But it is not true that it "was a scam" or is anything less than revolutionary.
> It won't convince me because I HAVE BEEN USING IT, and IT HAS ACTUALLY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.
I'm not going to defend a piece where the author contradicts the (clickbait) title in the body of the text, but he does actually say, plainly, that AI is useful for coding.
You didn't say what you're using it for, but since you're here, I'm guessing it's coding.
> I'm glad Anthropic is getting a taste of their own medicine.
I took that to mean that you support the Pentagon's threat which essentially IS to label Anthropic as a national security threat, simply because they wouldn't give the Pentagon the right to use Anthropic's AI to operate weapons or spy on American citizens.
Big fish tries to use their might to kill off small fish .
Anthropic uses big $$ it to become big fish in the AI pond.
Anthropic just found there are bigger fish in their pond.
I'm glad Anthropic have been reminded of this. THat doesn't mean I endorse the US govt using law to make companies a "national security threat" , although its an extremelt easy path from: monopolistic to -> active "national security threat".
Govt can, and in fact, has a mandate to, go after businesses when those businesses threaten a functioning market. Threatening is certainly part of that arsenal.
Because ATProto is specifically designed to allow being NON-centralized. Unlike Pinterest. Yes, ATProto is new and most of the traffic is through a single site at the moment, but it is specifically designed to allow for that to change.
> the goodwill they'd earned lately in my book was just decimated by this
That sounds absurd to me. Committing to not building in advertising is very important and fundamental to me. Asking people who pay for a personal subscription rather than paying by the API call to use that subscription themselves sounds to me like it is. Just clarifying the social compact that was already implied.
I WANT to be able to pay a subscription price. Rather like the way I pay for my internet connectivity with a fixed monthly bill. If I had to pay per packet transmitted, I would have to stop and think about it every time I decided to download a large file or watch a movie. Sure, someone with extremely heavy usage might not be able to use a normal consumer internet subscription; but it works fine for my personal use. I like having the option for my AI usage to operate the same way.
The problem with fixed subscriptions in this model is that the service has an actual consumption cost. For something like internet service, the cost is primarily maintenance, unless the infrastructure is being expanded. But using LLMs is more like using water, where the more you use it, the greater the depletion of a resource (electricity in this case, which is likely being produced with fossil fuel which has to be sourced and transported, etc). Anthropic et al would be setting themselves up for a fall if they allow wholesale use at a fixed price.
That may be true, but the underlying problem is not that the LLMs are capable of accurately reporting information that is published in a single person's blog article. The underlying problem is that a portion of the population believes they are infallible.
They believe so because we have spent decades using the term AI for another category of symbolic methods (search-based chess engines, theorem provers, planners). In the areas where they were successful, these methods _were_ infallible (of course, compared to humans and modulo programming bugs).
Meanwhile, neural techniques have flown under the public consciousness radar until relatively recent times, when they had a huge explosion in popularity. But the term "AI" had retained that old aura of superhuman precision and correctness.
You write:
> The goal of taxation isn't "take money from anyone we can", nor is it 'wealth redistribution', it's instead 'how to pay for joint projects' that all of society benefits from.
But I think the author of the comment you were replying to had a different goal in mind. I think their goal was "prevent corporations from getting too big".
We can and should debate whether that is a goal we should be trying to achieve, but if it is then progressive taxation for companies might be a way to achieve it.
We might presume that was the goal, yet it wasn't explicitly stated. And many have a goal of generic wealth redistribution, and will inject such into any conversation about large companies.
One might note the unrestrained concern about fluid capital acquisition, in the post I replied to. It's not having billions in infrastructure that was cited, nor having a large number of employees, both metrics of size, but instead having fluid, unused capital.
If we wish to constrain upon size, there needs to be nuance, conjoined with the specific industry, and even sub-industry. Some capital equipment costs can be enormous. Should we work to prevent financing such via stored profit? Should we work to force companies to finance, then pay off, just to feed the banks, rather than store and then spend?
Should we tax so that "big ideas" may never occur?
I think far more would be gained by ensuring taxation just stays fair between smaller and larger company structures. There's a lot of book-keeping that can be done as a large company, to hide profits, that cannot be done when you're a small mom and pop.
Why does H3 use a nonoverlapping set of hexagons? A square grid would make it even simpler and faster to calculate. I am perfectly happy to believe that a hex grid works better for some reason but what is that reason?
The main design goal was to make the distance between neighbours constant. With squares, you have 4 side neighbours and 4 corner neighbours. With hexagons, it's easier to interpolate paths and analyse distances.
No, not that I am aware of. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is my understanding that the majority of prosecuted crimes involving the Internet in the US are prosecuted in State courts, not Federal.
I wouldn't call myself an expert on this topic, but I think you're severely missing the point: virtually any case involving use of the internet can be federalized under the interstate commerce doctrine.
Everything can be federwlized under the interstate commerce doctrine. There was a case where a farmer grew his own plants (wheat, I think) to feed himself and his animals, in contravention of federal quotas. It was ruled the federal government has authority because growing wheat affects the wheat market, even if the wheat is never sold and never leaves the state.
reply