But it does relate, dunno what to tell you. You think it doesn't relate because your reasoning stops at "they're not right so there is literally nothing else that's relevant about any of this", and what I'm saying to OP is "they're not right, and here's why those people would go around being wrong on the internet, and why a big (statistically insignificant) debunk will mostly just be you preaching to the choir", I'm steering the conversation that way because I felt it would be more productive.
There's nothing more I can say that I haven't already said at this point, understanding that people have emotions (and once again, understanding!= agreement) literally has no downside for you when looking at any kind of discourse.
Call me preachy or whatever, I'm just trying to find a topic of discussion that's not just the usual yelling past eachother: "Large providers have ROI!!" vs "Large providers are in the red!!", not opening that can of worm.
You keep trying to twist what I'm saying into "guys you have to be nice to the ai haters and meet them at the middle, even when they insult you :))))". Once again you have this kneejerk reaction to the words "emotions" and "feelings" as if it would make you weak to acknowledge that "humans feeling a certain way act a certain way".
I'll once again have to remind you that all of what I said was just "yeah these guys are really pissed off, here's why they might be" and never once asked any of you to agree with them, or that their conclusions about rsync were right, or anything like that.
You act like "understanding" is only ever a gift/favor you do to someone else. While it's true that in many cases it is, "understanding" can also be something that just helps you and doesn't require interaction or agreement, it's when you think "oh there's no debating with these guys so it's probably not worth it to engage" or "oh these people are talking about X but it looks like the Y underlying issue is the actual problem, so talking about X might be a waste of time".
You completely disregard human emotions as if doing so makes you stronger, but all it does is make you more confused, surprised and angry whenever you're faced with irrational reactions you can't understand.
Now if you decide to interpret all of that as me saying "I am in moral agreement with the dogpiling and the witch hunts shown in that github thread", that is a failing of yours.
Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times.
OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote:
> I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis
---
And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings".
Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse?
Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread.
What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing".
You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers".
All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.
I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse?
These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment.
Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".
This article is a rant disguised as data analysis.
I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I know that sounds really reductive, but this really is the vibe I get when reading this and your other replies where you repeatedly talk about "showing the hypocrisy and double standards".
The global LLM discourse has grown massive, it spans trillions of dollars in promises and investments and affects pretty much everyone, so it's the easiest thing in the world for both sides to just find some people being assholes in the other camp and say "look, here's how [other camp] behaves".
The irrational, extreme, and heinous reactions are partly bandwagoning, and you can go about your day thinking that anyone who reacts like that is evil. But if you wanna dig a bit further, you'll notice that the entire media sphere has been screaming in everyone's ears for a few years now, that they're expandable, low-value-human-capital. All the money in the world (exaggerating a little) is being spent on making sure to remind anyone who opens a computer, opens a website, looks at a billboard, or turns on his tv... that their boss really really really wants to replace them.
Now you'll say that the friendly rsync contributor has nothing to do with any of this and... well yeah he doesn't. You don't need to agree with an emotional response to understand where it's coming from, and even if you're still dead set on considering them "the enemy", then understanding why the anti-AI crowd reacts like that is STILL a positive for you.
I wholeheartedly believe it's 100% intentional of Anthropic to use "vulnerability" to describe something that ranges from "serious attack vector" to "you forgot to add this variable to the useEffect dependency array".
The difference between serving 1 and 1 billion http queries is not the same as the difference between generating 1 and 1 billion tokens.
The startup blitz-scaling-market-capturing playbook makes makes sense when you spend to scale, not when you spend because you scale, yeah, I understand that step 2 is "and now you squeeze the users", but it will need to be by such a bigger factor...
But if it's fully being amortized, then it means they don't buy new Nvidia GPUs anymore for a while. The situation is either "your GPU AND the datacenter infrastructure it's running on is obsolete", or "Nvidia's profits tank because people are staying with current-level infrastructure".
Good article, I think most hero images are pointless in the first place, so having them diffusion-generated now feels like a signal to just not read the piece. It goes from "look at this irrelevant image" to "look at this irrelevant image, and I have bad taste by the way!"
I'm reading "people don't care so it doesn't matter" in the replies, in that case can we agree to just drop all unneeded illustrations altogether when it comes to technical articles?
But does this translate as "one year of cumulative work" or rather "one year of rearranging your workflow and discarding obsolete ideas"?
If you spend a year walking in circles, someone can easily close the gap with one step. Especially if models and harnesses are supposedly getting more powerful all the time.
Not to be a hater or anything (I'm a hater), but I'm seeing people mention the potential of LLMs for the "grunt work" like retopo, but I can't really begin to imagine what the "correct" data representation and python api calls would even begin to look like in a training set?
Would an LLM really be querying vertices in relation to one another and estimate whether their distance "sounds" like good topology?
Fusion has great potential, but is probably being held back by a lack of community support, the slightly-higher-barrier-of-entry of node-based workflows, and the subtle but annoying ways in which the software can work against you.
TLDR: it does some stuff slower than ae, but nodes allows it to very easily do a lot of stuff that ae struggles with.
It's also a lot easier to parse since node->properties is less nested than comp->layers->effects->properties (and this makes a big difference on cognitive load).
I would also recommend Control Panel for Twitter, easy to install on PC, and you can also have it for your phone if you use twitter via the Firefox mobile browser.
If all you can see is the following tab, then any ragebait that gets in your way is much more actionable, simply unfollow or mute whoever got it on your feed.
Violence against datacenters or AI company CEOs is very bad, they must be allowed to fail organically so that they don't have any excuse.
The last thing I want is for someone, in 2029, to say "but LLMs just weren't given a fair chance last time, we would have definitely reached AGI with more funding if it wasn't for [targeted attack]"
Thank you, this comparison has been a huge annoyance of mine for the past 3 years of... this same debate over and over.
I think it's the hubris that I find most offensive in this argument: a guy knows one complex thing (programming) and suddenly thinks he can make claims about neuroscience.
Yep that's the usual "art is a problem that must be solved, the process is an inconvenience" mindset. The CEO of SUNO AI also said something similar, "people don't enjoy making music".
I mean, I understand the CEO of SUNO etc. Talking about self-actualization in a negative sense, because they don’t really get it completely, or just it’s against their business interest which means they find bad arguments to support their own interest openly.
My take as someone who mostly does it "for fun": I only started blogging as a way to have writings online outside of social platforms.
>What made it worth it for you?
If by "worth it" you mean a measurable ROI, then nothing. If we expand it to more abstract concepts, then spinning up my own HUGO theme and writing about what I like is fun, so self actualization is what I get from it.
>What kinds of posts actually worked (for learning, career, network, opportunities)?
None, probably less than 100 people have read it, I only share it in friend groups, but it feels nice when those friends read it and give me feedback.
>Any practical format that lowers the bar (length, cadence, themes)?
What do you mean by "lowers the bar"? The length of my posts can be pretty variable, cadence is "whenever" and the blog can go months without an update, and themes are also pretty varied, sometimes I talk about some piece of fiction I like, other times it gets more technical, and sometimes too I just recount the process of making something and the insights it gave me.
>If you were starting today, what would you do differently?
There's not much to change when blogging has not changed my life in any significant regard, I'm just glad I started.
I haven't really seen a single person (who has no vested interest in genAI) be enthusiastic, or trusting about this. The overall reaction to this is rightfully extremely negative.
Why's it so mean spirited? I don't see that many ads, but the few I've seen lately are just insulting.
Apple intelligence: "why try to make an effort for others?"
McDonalds germany: "Christmas sucks actually, but you know what doesn't?"
Great sample size of 2 I know... still enough to make me wonder if ad agencies are just playing a game of chicken between themselves to see who can spit on the face of customers the most before they realize they're being spit on.
McDonald's case is pretty funny, because their JP branch on social media is on a streak of well-received PR stunts where they just grab whoever made a popular song/meme over the years and pay them to redo it as an ad (+ releasing an original song for their moon-viewing line of product that I do enjoy).
There's nothing more I can say that I haven't already said at this point, understanding that people have emotions (and once again, understanding!= agreement) literally has no downside for you when looking at any kind of discourse.
Call me preachy or whatever, I'm just trying to find a topic of discussion that's not just the usual yelling past eachother: "Large providers have ROI!!" vs "Large providers are in the red!!", not opening that can of worm.