Is this the same Anthropic speaking as the one that's constantly terrified their newest thing is too dangerous and might destroy humanity (now available for $20/month or pay-as-you-go usage credits)?
Weird how every new model seems hyped up as the most dangerous yet and the one that will destroy society as we know it. They are also a commercial product.
Your second paragraph appears to be 3 different instances of saying "X does not necessarily point to productivity gains... but in the case of AI, X definitely means productivity" without really saying why that is true or why other explanations do not fit.
Adoption meaning productivity supposes there are no other dominant factors for the AI push nor AI retention. It is possible for practices to be picked up or continued in spite of causing productivity DROPS. What studies have suggested are factors that make for productive work environments and what is actually enforced in the workplace are different things.
> The way I see it, AI is going to change the world radically. It could be for the worse, the better, or a mix of both, but in my mind there's no doubt.
Worthless statement. Wow, you suspect something can make things better, worse, or both? That's a keen insight there.
> For reference, radio waves were discovered in 1886, Marconi used them for communications in 1895, and while telephone and radio coexisted for many decades, it wasn't until the 1995 that mobile phones and wireless technologies started picking up.
We are still so early.
I mean, we have advertised them in multiple super bowls, have companies that basically own tech news (incredulous journalists will repeat any stupid insane shit a CEO wants to say), that say they're valued at over a trillion dollars and nobody with the power to argue those finances seems willing to do anything but agree. We have built hundreds and hundreds of acres of data centers (and made deals for data centers that are never going to happen) that demand *billions* per month. They are devouring all the silicon to where people are visibly seeing the price of hardware double, triple, more in price. Work places insist on employees using AI (then pulled back because it turns out this stuff costs money and it's not fun anymore when it's not subsidized).
But we just need more time, more eyes, more people looking at it.
> In every of these threads there's a bunch of snarky comments, either acting like this class of attack is exclusive to npm, or that nothing has been done about it. I don't think that's fair.
I mean it keeps happening lmao. You can track npm attacks these on a calendar. Someone made a npm parody of the classic "no way to avoid this" The Onion article.
It's great there's work to stop it all but also... it keeps happening. I find it funny in a "here we go again" way.
Right? Yeah, everything's decoupled and "flexible", but if your stack is dependent on half a dozen different third parties uninterested or uninvested in your project, you gotta watch like a hawk for when those services decide they need to be worse and charge more.
I was assured last week that things like this are fine and we should be responsible adults by settling for "good enough" when it comes to self-driving cars.
Yeah, nothing to suggest that here. We went from some commits every so often (because rsync was basically finished software) with a handful of issues a month, to "a bajillion Claude commits then a release" with a pile of issues within weeks, at least one of which is about how the goddamn thing doesn't build.
I can't possibly see a correlation.
Weird how 3.4.2. didn't have a similar deluge of issue reports, though.
> using chips for AI is bad. Chips should be used for good things like playing video games
This is correct. Playing Final Fantasy XIV has done exponentially more good, and provided more value, than anything LLMs have ever produced. Thank you for your post.
> Put simply, because otherwise we will not have enough data to train a model that's actually useful.
Hmm, when asked to opt-in to giving their data away for yet another AI non-service, people don't want to. That's strange! The only way to get their data is to assume you can take it and force them to tell you to stop. Wonder what that could mean? Oh well, it's a mystery no one will be able to solve.
> search for how much oil does my <ICE vehicle> take" and get the exact answer in a single sentence
How do you know the answer is exact?
> or I suppose I could click the links and wade through all the validation for choosing <ICE vehicle> and how often one should change the oil, and which brand of oil that blog is pushing etc etc.
Where do you think that "exact answer" is being scraped and averaged-out from?
> It’s so ubiquitous people don’t even think about it or notice it anymore.
Which is kind of the scary hazard for Google. They made people notice search by their announcements. They drew attention to the thing people took for granted as just how things work. People suddenly have a reason to look critically at it. Google has to hope to god the attention they receive back is actually positive.
> Those people obviously don't want to talk to you/"other people" or not interested in the topic you're talking about or both.
Great suggestion. Problem: these are bosses and coworkers and people you need to work with to keep receiving income to live, and the topics talked about are things important to the place of work.
I may have to break the news to you that the LMGTFY was also rude. Both LMGTFY and AI copypastes are rude and dismissive answers that are intended to make the person asking the question feel stupid and bad. It only provides value in making you feel really smart and possibly smug about showing that question-asker what's up, and offers nothing in the short term about their problem (or in the long term about their comfort in turning to you for help).
> you can get a straight answer from an LLM
By definition, LLMs cannot give a straight answer. They give you text based off next token probabilities.
I thought the LLM promise was that people could do things easily because conversation is the most intuitive input there is. If we still have to "figure out how to get it out", what if we put that educational effort into... I don't know, learning search or queries or something that gives concrete answers and not statistically-average-probability answers?