I've used Interrail every time I want to travel a longer distance across Europe by train. Spares me some of the stress of dealing with interruptions since I can often just hop on the next train. Unless it's fully booked...
Voluntary for whom? The service provider? Can I opt out of getting scanned?
> Does it touch encrypted messages? - No. End-to-end encrypted communications were never scanned but providers could deploy client-side scanning under this law.
So it circumvents e2e encryption?
---
How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client?
Couldn't this be a flaw in the attention mechanism? Like they need some kind of grounding. An awareness of what they fundamentally should care about and how the thing they are currently giving attention to relates to that?
It seems like the site is currently getting hugged so I can't look but I'm glad someone is trying to achieve a more minimalistic take on the UX of a software forge. It seems like an area with good room for improvement.
Realistically they can't go that much above the actual cost for inference since the customer can always switch to self hosted or inference only providers. Or their models have to be significantly better than the open source models for the foreseeable future. They will never be able to charge much more for their lower tier models.
Don't you think that we will eventually get more specialized hardware that will greatly improve efficiency? Running neural networks on GPU:s seem like quite wasteful?
- The frontier AI companies have realized they won't be able to count on gaining ground and earning more in the future through sheer moat. They have to start earning right now.
- The playing field on the market got a whole lot more even as a result. Now everyone is competing on cost and quality - while there are still a lot of competition. AI suppliers can't easily get away with subsidizing their own product and enshittify later.
I might be missing something obvious here? It feels to me that if the frontier AI companies thought they could gain a lot more moat they wouldn't raise their prices this much this early? And their current moats/head start doesn't seem insurmountable?
I guess it becomes different if instead of hiring more people to do more - all investment goes into more AI credits.
Then again, as long as there is more demand and there's a limited supply of compute you can still continue to hire people as well. If we assume that the market has infinite demand for whatever AI + humans can produce together both will have jobs.
If demand is limited and compute is plentiful it should make sense for a company to try to have AI do as much of the work as possible.
I suppose you could solve that in two ways. Manually rewrite it as you did. Or formalize an architecture and let the AI rewrite it with that in mind. I suspect that either works.
2. AIs aren't yet good at imagining technically exciting stuff to build.
And I agree that there's still space there to build a career in the short to medium term (plus Jevons Paradox). When both those points are no longer true we are certainly much closer to, dear I say it, agi. I suspect that (1) will be solved for somewhat limited domains in the near future using harnesses. And it could snowball from there.
And more intelligence should give an opportunity to increase explain-ability rather than just complexity. It can potentially explain the proof at the level of the listener. Make visualizations. Etc.
Why can't we (or AI) invent ways to explain information that makes it much more digestible? And the solutions simpler?
Why is it necessary to continue to increase complexity when we get better intelligence? Can't we find more simple solutions? Or at least more explainable.
Working with: React, Elasticsearch, Kubernetes, Bunch of programming languages