pnt12
Another interpretation of freedom is the state guaranteeing the rights, and duties, of everyone. Directly it seems with more laws you have less freedom, but in a society with many opportunistic actors, this can lead to a balance that is actually more fair.
Of course it's nuanced, it's not just anarchy vs fascism. But in free markets, the state should at least uphold acceptable minimums to prevent abuse.
The trend has been they focus on quality, rarely compromising their vision, which started as niche gameplay ideas that are now a new genre, adopted in many new games. And the effect has been that they got a reputation for quality, and sell more and more games with each new release, with elden ring selling like 36M copies.
So even if she doesn't know about creating video games, I wouldn't judge her as "a business first gamers last" type of person.
For the lulz.
This means cloud models can have some guardrails and follow them most of the time (we could model their authorizations like a benign employee with permission to break glass during incidents). But self hosted models can avoid that and help malicious people do advanced attacks, which is a shame.
In principle I'm all for self hosted models, to avoid risks of AI centralization, but they also have other types of risks.
The more interesting question is, if this happens, how will society organize. Would companies subsidize our new bohemian way of life? Why? Would the state need to create incentives for them to focus in the right things? Would there be a need for companies and governments? Would we give up all our autonomy?
"The wait is finally over—the Walmart Museum is back and better than ever!"
"This video series is intended to be updated as time goes on, so go ahead and come back on your next visit to experience more messages!"
Because some can have critical conversations, with pros and cons, right and wrong doings. But others will lie, cheat and steal, and degrade democracy, with long term impacts.
I don't think llms are an abstraction - they're a delegation.
In my country, there have been pacific protests about housing. They were faced with police brutality, but this only increased the people protesting and making demands. Some politicians initially said they wouldn't change policies, but seeing so many people involved, now some are changing their stance.
Politics have gotten really divisive, but ignoring them is not the answer.
My idea is that through first principles and made up probabilities, they can reach any conclusion they want. But there's a veil of authority: "I'm a rationalist, therefore I arrived this conclusion, surely not from rationalization, but from first principles, probabilities and logic! It doesn't matter if it sounds insane, because it uses first principles, probabilities and logic!".
Some arguments about future predictions seem like a sci-fi fan base nerding about their favorite stories, but without any self awareness.
You get a nerds wet dream: nerdy stuff and ego boost. But very detached from reality.
* Determinism: you can create mental models with compilers, not so much with agents
* Autonomy: of you understand the code, you can always jump in to do fixed yourself if needed
* costs: most compilers are free
* availability: you may lose access to models for misc reasons (peak usage, price hike, depreciation, etc)
That's the problem: ad based apps want to keep you there, not solve your problems.
I thought about a dating app where you pay for entry and that's it. Then the incentive is that you don't need it anymore ASAP, because the more time you spend there, the more costs.
Theres a network problem, where it must be high quality, successful, and with lots of people before people are willing to pay. Maybe it would need to start with a free trial in a small region to get some traction before, and rolled out slowly.
To people who don't like to write a ticket or PR description, the AI text is better than nothing.
Many symptoms of undercover fascism.
Although I wouldn't take an Openai announcement literally, as Sam Altman is also not trustworthy.
Until anyone does, "crime is legal", as coffeezilla says.
Even considering the disfuncional way, one thing it's to say "you only stay if we allow". The other is to say "you only leave if you allow": that's a much more authoritarian position.
These policies will work and immigration will lower for sure. Let's see the outcome in a few years.
Macroeconomics are a different beast but I think it still holds (and not that Trump knows a thing about them). A country with a productive economy may buy some valuable products from other countries. It becomes a problem if it's buying everything and not selling anything.
People are subtracting a lot of hard parts from their thinking, and think it's simpler than it is. What happens when the test suite isn't testing the real thing? The ci/cd doesn't even start? There is a bug requiring a hot fix ASAP? The code is growing into a nasty meatball and spaghetti dish, and the llms just turn shift it around. What about when the agent starts thinking in circles and neefs guidance to start working?
I'm not a ludite: I use llms every day, but I try not to be a meat proxy. Some one off scripts are vibe coded, but applications need real maintainable code.
My prediction for winners and losers: some companies will lay off a ton of programmers and replace with AI, with short term success but long term big problems. Other companies will use llms to boost productivity, but keep their engineers responsible for the health of the products. Short term gains won't be as impressive, but productivity will be higher and the company will be competitive in the long term.
Yes, free markets are good to a lot of things. No, they don't adjust for complex matters if consumers don't understand then. No, they don't work when monopolies are involved. No, the government setting some boundaries is not the same as socialism.
Example: company adds a cheap ingredient to food that makes it tastier. Studies show a high chance of cancer. This doesn't affect the company margins, so it keeps adding and selling. Consumers are unaware, they keep buying. A good willing competitor has a dillema: poison its customers or lose clients to competition. Guess who can help? The state: it can forbid that ingredient! Now this levels the field for all companies and customers are healthy.