Quality was what the hypothetical was assuming had reached parity, no? ("humans are as bad as AI", "If AI really is at human level quality/error rate", etc.)
> accountability
Why could the company not still take accountability? That's already the case for non-ML automated systems, some with high failure rates. As a customer I rarely if ever care about blame being pinned on a specific employee.
> Your counter argument was outside the context of this articles claims, specifically that programmers and other knowledge workers can be replaced by LLMs.
AndrewKemendo's comment and your reply ("any humans", "replace humans") seemed to generalize, but speed and cost being important factors is still true for knowledge work. For some given level of quality, a web developer offering a lower quote with shorter turnaround time will be preferred to one offering a higher quote with longer turnaround time.
My understanding of your argument is (paraphrasing):
> > People try to excuse AI issues/failure modes by saying humans have them too, but even if they're equally bad then what would be the whole point of replacing a human worker with AI?
To which my response is that speed and cost are also important factors, which can often give AI the edge in considerations when quality/error rate is equal.
If you meant something other than that, you may have to specify.
> Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed?
Yes. How long it'll take and how much it'll cost are going to be among pretty much any customer's first questions.
They're not the only considerations, and could potentially be outweighed by other concerns even when quality is the same, but I think they are the main drives of AI adoption in industry. If error rate is the same, a $1/hr (amortized) camera and machine vision model capable of checking 300ft of material for defects per minute will likely be preferred to a $10/hr human QA capable of checking 30ft per minute, for instance.
> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”
If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.
I do like snake_case but a lot of this feels a bit circular, effectively just saying that it's good because it's already used by the author's code and things it interacts with.
I'd like kebab-case even more if it weren't for the annoying detail that `-` is also subtraction.
Only Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder/discharging a firearm, shot the police officer. Some others didn't bring firearms, were not in any planning chat (in which no violence was planned regardless), weren't at the protest or had already left, yet still received absurdly harsh sentences - that's the chilling effect.
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
As far as I can tell, the moving of zines (he was pulled over and had a box in his car) is what's being presented as "hiding documentation" - not something beyond that.
> being sought under a federal warrant
Timeline seems to be that a warrant was obtained after pulling him over ("Sanchez-Estrada was then arrested on state traffic offenses, and officers obtained a search warrant [...]"). Can't find a source saying there was a warrant prior to this.
> The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
It's true that demonstrators were setting off fireworks, and it's true that Benjamin Song later shot at a police officer who had drawn his gun. But it's just the government's narrative/speculation that the intent of the fireworks was to draw out first responders to ambush, and that Sanchez-Estrada's zines were in some way documentation of this despite him not being at the protest and his wife not being the shooter.
> just because they won't do anything now does not mean it is legal to redistribute it without their consent
I don't think the parent comment is claiming it's legal, other than the (unlikely) chance that this is licensed, just that it's up to Valve to enforce and not really our concern. A lot of cool things (like the similar https://noclip.website/) are prima facie copyright infringement.
It's not saying that it's not released by Google, but that it's not an officially supported Google product. I presume to make it clear that it's not covered by support agreements/bug bounties/etc. in the way products like Google Docs would be.
Not to say this necessarily isn't the reason, but I always get the feeling with "stock up/down amid investor optimism/fears of XYZ" headlines like this that you could secretly replace the financial reporter's data with Brownian motion and they'd equally find some justification for the rises/falls.
Removing free user data is unfortunate, but understandable that it might eventually come to that.
A monthly subscription to regain access is questionable to me, since it'd mean they are still storing the images. A one-time fee could be justified for the cost of recovering the data from cold storage, but risks incentivizing intentionally luring in users then unexpectedly holding their data as leverage to have them pay up as a business model.
Claiming a user can pay to recover their photos, while not actually having anything to restore, is misrepresentation.
> disgusting anti-democratic suggestion [...] denying them representation
I assume the idea isn't that developing a game means you don't get to vote as a citizen, but that the industry can't lobby for special access ("spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups").
> Most of people, when they claim that something is rational or logical, actually mean that it's a position that they agree with
I'd claim a relevant axis is argument as deduction (common in mathematics) vs argument as rhetoric/persuasion (common in politics).
It's not that the former type is necessarily rational. "All birds have wings, planes have wings, therefore planes are birds" is the former type of argument and fallacious, whereas "are you really comparing birds to planes?" is the latter type.
I feel the former can allow deeper exploration of some topic, but sometimes involves things like playing devil's advocate for stances outside of social norms - and requires others to engage at that level rather than taking the rhetoric path of shaming you for even considering it.
> Even that $1/Mtok provided by Together AI is heavily subsidized
Can you link this? I'm unable to find them offering deepseek-v4-flash. I think you could even host the pro model for a bit under $1/Mtok. You can get ~1000TPS out of the box on a B300 that you can rent for ~$3/hr, so around $0.83/Mtok.
Regardless - Alibaba, DeepSeek, NovitaAI, AtlasCloud, Cloudflare, DeepInfra, SiliconFlow, GMICloud, Morph, Baidu, Parasail, DigitalOcean, AkashML, StreamLake and likely others all seem to be offering it under $0.3 per million output tokens[0].
> This makes it unclear how the true cost curve is progressing
For no actual improvement in efficiency to be presented as a 10X yearly improvement since 2018, we'd need to currently be getting 100000000X more intensive models than we should be for what we're paying (a $1/Mtok model actually costs $100000000/Mtok). Presenting, say, a 9X actual yearly improvement as a 10X yearly improvement seems feasible, but for much beyond that I think the exponential just compounds too fast to reasonably fake.
DeepSeek models are open-source so there are a bunch of third-party providers offering similar prices. Factoring in that DeepSeek have to train the model (whereas third parties can make a small profit over just the inference costs) I'd assume that on net they're spending investor money, but I wouldn't think that's any less true of OpenAI.
VSCode will be used by plenty of non-AI-using developers, and the credential harvester is not specific to AI API tokens, but that 3/4 of the targets are AI coding tools is I assume where the claim comes from.
Quality was what the hypothetical was assuming had reached parity, no? ("humans are as bad as AI", "If AI really is at human level quality/error rate", etc.)
> accountability
Why could the company not still take accountability? That's already the case for non-ML automated systems, some with high failure rates. As a customer I rarely if ever care about blame being pinned on a specific employee.
> Your counter argument was outside the context of this articles claims, specifically that programmers and other knowledge workers can be replaced by LLMs.
AndrewKemendo's comment and your reply ("any humans", "replace humans") seemed to generalize, but speed and cost being important factors is still true for knowledge work. For some given level of quality, a web developer offering a lower quote with shorter turnaround time will be preferred to one offering a higher quote with longer turnaround time.