>They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about.
That's not their claim. Their claim is that there is some flaw ("confounding thing") in the study. They then go on to say that men and women's brains are "indistinguishable." Well, of course you will automatically assume there is a flaw if that is your belief.
I know what you mean, but there are plenty of mundane and labor-intensive tasks in art too. Ever try to make background characters or landscapes for a video? It's stuff that nobody pays attention to, but it still has to look plausible. Real artists will use Sora as a tool to automate those tedious tasks, so they can focus on storytelling.
That means that for the 9 people interviewed that returned the devices, Bloomberg would have had to contact 900 AVP buyers just to find those 9 (1%). Either that, or the ratio is off.
There will still be a job for animators, at the very least. They'll flesh out the armature (skeleton) animations, and AI will paint over it, like a style transfer. Imo human-driven animation will stay around for a bit longer because of the nuance of movement and connection to storytelling.
The AVP is one of the most out of touch products I've ever seen from a respected brand, and I can almost hear Steve Job's scathing criticisms of it, based on everything I know about him. Not to mention, it goes against the increasing trend of less screens and less tech. The fact that it got made and is being pushed so hard as the next step in computing, is bonkers.
So to me, it contributes because it is another data point that the leadership has compromised its ability to consistently make forward thinking decisions.
The creation of the Vision Pro, and now this direct assault on the open web, makes me believe that Apple is no longer has the vision to lead the industry effectively. It's a shame because it has enormous momentum behind it, which means every bad decision, like this one, will be felt be millions of people for years.
See my edit above, I never said "a few pennies" or "a few cents", I said "cents" intended as a relative contrast to "millions." We don't know how much a company is worth if it is expected to be immediately destroyed upon purchase, so if "dollars" or "10s of dollars" is more palatable to you, feel free to mentally substitute that instead.
>You think the total valuation of all companies divided by the total number of people comes out to a few cents?
No, where did I say that? The person I was replying to wants to share OpenAI's value specifically, so I only mention OpenAI. Also, I didn't say "a few cents", I said cents, intended as a relative contrast to "millions."
>The US GDP per capita was $80k in 2023. The global GDP per capita is $13K.
Yes, and the US per capita GDP would drop to $15.8k if the "excess" was redistributed to the rest of the world. But now everyone is equal, regardless of what they do, right? Is this fair?
>Even if you were to split up the valuation of OpenAI for every single person in the world, everyone would be getting $10.
That's not how it works and I think you know that. Where does this tangible $10 come from if there is no buyer? Or do you think someone is willing to spend $80B on a company which is then immediately destroyed because the money is taken from the shareholders and sent to everyone else? There would be no company left. Do you think that the very idea of this impending dissolution-upon-purchase wouldn't lower the value of the company drastically?
>what point are you actually trying to make?
That it's silly to suggest redistributing OpenAI compensation.
It's like the Monkey's Paw from the Simpsons: you can have a program that understands what you mean, but you can't understand how it really works.
It's just another tool in the toolbox. Personally, I think we've reached the limits of "computers do exactly what you ask them to do, to a fault." I'm interested to see how the opposite direction works out for us.
A social contract is not defined by a LICENSE file.
Developers are under no obligation to create new software for a hostile company's products. Let's see how many vision pro apps get created if Apple keeps shitting on open standards.
I don't mean to imply that the OSS maintainers are owed anything, because I don't believe that. There is still a social contract without anyone being owed anything. You haven't really given an example of why you don't think it exists.
Also, to what do I owe the honor of you creating a username based on mine, specifically to reply to me?
That's not their claim. Their claim is that there is some flaw ("confounding thing") in the study. They then go on to say that men and women's brains are "indistinguishable." Well, of course you will automatically assume there is a flaw if that is your belief.