"Most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments to go on believing as we already do." -- James Harvey Robinson.
I've long since come to the conclusion that humans choose their positions based on gut reactions and almost all of their arguments for holding that position come after the fact.
It's tough for me to square the two things happening simultaneously in AI right now:
1. LLM Model providers are starting to charge real costs to users, revealing that AI usage is much more expensive than the subsidized rates we've been seeing for years.
2. Google is now using an LLM to answer every single google search that happens, for which Google bears the entire cost.
I did an analysis of reconstruction spending in Afghanistan sometime around 2010, just looking at what money was spent where and what the impacts were. Infrastructure spending was the only thing that had any measurable return. Building roads in a given region reduced violence.
In order to make this viable, wouldn't you have to verify identity repeatedly? What's to stop me from providing a valid identity and then handing my account over to an agent after I'm verified?
> But these measures were implemented poorly and needed to be paired with matchmaking to not destroy the platform.
As a parent, my experience in discussion with other parents is: "Don't ever let your child onto Roblox, it is utterly toxic and should be avoided at all costs."
From that perspective, I think most parents view the destruction of the platform as neutral to positive, and it suggests that the status quo would destroy the platform anyway.
Of course that's true, and I'll happily join the United Technology Workers Union when it exists. In the meantime, I don't think you can fault people for taking the safest option for their families instead of sticking it to the man.
Practically speaking, the person who stays has three months salary, plus severance and then unemployment. The person who quits loses their entire income stream immediately.
Do you think your small act of defiance has a bigger impact on you, or on the company? Now imagine you have a family at home that depends on your income and do the math again.
American here. I was at a party when I saw the news and gleefully announced it to the table I was sitting at. We were all pleased with both the result and the concession.
I've been avoiding Chrome-based browsers for many years now but have only recently become aware of how catastrophically low the Firefox market share is. I'm kind of shocked that more people aren't choosing to avoid Chrome.
For all of the article's brown-nosing, there doesn't seem anything particularly groundbreaking about this thesis: the internet was once thought of as a mechanism for the unvarnished spread of information and is now utilized by those with power and influence as a mechanic for careful information control. Am I missing something?
Hilariously, the article manages to have a right-wing bent to this revelation, as though it's those insidious liberals buying up the world's information streams and intentionally breaking them.
Need is definitely too strong a word, but I think we can agree that uv has so far been the best solution to a problem that plagued python development for a really long time.
"Most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments to go on believing as we already do." -- James Harvey Robinson.
I've long since come to the conclusion that humans choose their positions based on gut reactions and almost all of their arguments for holding that position come after the fact.