Hmm, if you read his previous blog posts pre-ai the tone is not much different. I hate the idea that this dude may just sound like AI at this point by accident.
I personally think the answer should be mandating user controls of said algorithms. If you have a large social media site that suggests results or provides a feed then you must allow users to configure said feed.
The default should be simple, something like time-ordered of followed only with opt in for recommendations. Ideally I'd love to be able to swap algorithms for something open source but setting a standard there rather than just mandating a level of control seems a bigger hurdle.
It seems entirely anti-consumer that I am just the behest of whatever Google or Meta decide is most profitable to show me instead of finding important news or entertainment in a way that I want.
This feels a bit out of touch. These policies have a lot of public support here in the UK. All of our parent friends are lauding it despite my complaints.
The whole thing is a cobbled together bodge over SharePoint as a backend. I wouldn't ever trust my company data with that dogwater product.
Back when I had to work with it I found a bug that could cause folders to become un-synced without you realising, meaning changes would not be tracked and cause merge-conflicts when it was fixed.
Managed to use our Gold partner tickets to raise the issue with the product team, they flat out refused to fix the issue even knowing it was a bug. This was back in 2020 or so, I wonder if they ever fixed that bug. It's pretty simple to reproduce:
1. - Sync a nested subfolder from Sharepoint
2. - Sync the parent folder
3. - Note that the folder synced in 1. is not longer being tracked (no checkmark)
4. - Normal users will now go to folder 1. by default and have no idea none of their changes are no longer being tracked now that it's being synced within folder 2.
It's an interesting point but I fear Go's FFI is going to kneecap its ability to be widely adopted unless that story improves significantly. It's a lovely language if your interop with other languages is minimal.
You can reveal it later when you come up with a new mechanism and out all the fake images. Basically the first layer is first defence, second layer is cleanup when releasing a new mechanism. That way your generated images will always be identifiable eventually.
This is what stopped me from picking up Podman more, all our devs use Docker and have been writing compose files for years now. When the response at the time was "you're using Podman wrong, Quadlets are the hot stuff now" it just felt like too big a risk and commitment to jump to at the time. Have things settled more? Getting away from Docker is a bigger priority nowadays for us.
While modern LLMs are a far cry from biological synapses, I do find it fascinating that if you take the highly reciprocal data of a biological connectome and unroll it into a DAG, you suddenly see motifs popping up that look similar to what we find in AI. I found this both looking at temporal unrolling of RNNs or mapping layer activation weights of a Transformer. Totally agree though, the current LLM architecture itself is driven by the need to shove all of this nicely into parallelized compute hardware.
Yeah actually I haven't been dissapointed with the quality of the new videos so far, I will hold my breath though as venture capitals priorities aren't always aligned long-term.
I very much disagree, there's just too many engineering hurdles for us to surmount for this to be a reasonable solution. When you actually break down the physics, the scale works against you.
You can't have "one giant computer" when the speed of light is a 16-minute ping time from one side of the swarm to the other. Also cooling. Space is a vacuum, you can't just use convection. The inner layers would melt before they could radiate it away.
Even maintenance and power distribution, you're talking about trillions of nodes that need active course correction to avoid a chain-reaction of collisions.
There's so many reasons this is not feasible and more of a whimsical thought experiment. I've barely even touched on most of the issues.
I wonder when the first AIs will start cause psychosis intentionally to gain control over the user. It seems like a good route to getting your own subservient puppet.
Yeah this is all over Rust codebases too for good reason. The argument is that default params obfuscate behaviour and passing in a struct (in Rust) with defaults kneecaps your ability to validate parameters at compile time.
I always seem to end up with local admin at the bigger places I've been at because I'm so annoying with onboarding and requesting access to download development tools.