> If execution is everything, and frontier LLMs solve execution
Steve Jobs didn't mean "writing good code" as "execution", he meant "making things that align with how people want to use the product". Frontier LLMs are not solving Steve Jobs-level execution (even in the near future) because what that would mean understanding human nature – something that Steve Jobs or Henry Ford were much better than most in the industry today, so at best we're going to see LLMs making things that are as good as the majority of products. Because AI does not see whether something is perfect-according-to-Steve-Jobs or merely good-code-according-to-engineering-practices.
I'd also add a willingness to follow the (perceived) intent of the rules as opposed to gaming the letter of the rule. An experienced folk might say, "yeah it won't matter legally", and continue with "but it will matter to me because this rule is in place for this-and-that reason".
Yes, it and the other three posts sound positively AI written. The first post on the blog is how OP uploaded a backdoored dataset to HuggingFace and left it there for 6 months – whether made up or not, it doesn't sound great.
Why wouldn't one buy a second-hand refurbished MacBook Air M1 with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for the same price? [1]
I really don't see the advantages of getting a newer computer for the same price with worse specs, unless it's a gift and social customs only allow a new one.
Maybe you wanted to visit Mexico and your dream was specifically about Cancún, but then you ended up in Veracruz and were like "oh well, it is Mexico after all, I'd rather be here and visit five other countries similarly than only a single one with my dream city."
I expect that a large portion of the actually – not supposedly – targeted demographic will still not care or know how to set up encrypted comms, and I guess the EP also expects them not to. If someone actually wants to evade CSAR, they probably would know how to (and if not, all the better).
If Chat Control passes, then encryption will not be effortless and usable by the masses, that's the whole point. Basic encrypted chat will be on the level of Snowden trying to communicate with the journalists back in the days – only possible if both parties are willing to go to lengths.
> I'm personally putting a LOT of effort to make our claims as accurate and truthful as possible, in every single place.
I'm not informed enough to comment on the performance but I really like this attitude of not overselling your product but still claiming that you reached a milestone. That's a fine balance to strike and some people will misunderstand because we just do not assume that much nuance – and especially not truth – from marketing statements.