voiceblue

I’m just saying it’s not “corporate jealousy”, it’s a rational strategic decision. If you want it to stop, you have to affect the rationale.

There were no repercussions at all to their competitor (and, the Supreme Court sided with them), so it was logically the right move for a corporation. If the country or its people don’t bring the repercussions now, why wouldn’t these things continue to happen? It’s not a corporations job to regulate itself. If anything we can only blame the short sightedness and pettiness of humanity, which is causing bigger issues to flourish today.

> I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now.

I don’t think that’s hacker culture. It’s just the mainstream adoption of hacker culture, don’t let it replace the real thing in your mind. When lots and lots of people started playing candy crush on phones, it wasn’t gamer culture that changed, just the public perception of gaming.

There are still people out there who conform to the description you laid out. Are there lots and lots of them? No. It does seem to be a growing segment though.

It seems more likely that necrophilia was a major problem (compared to today), given how the Egyptians handled it and stories like Botan Dōrō. Very strange that you’re saying cloning voices with AI is “exactly what they mean”…?

Can you explain? How are they able to check whether someone did a quick “in and out” keylogger or cookie extraction? I doubt they can, because I doubt they store every request (that would go against what they claim for privacy) and I also doubt their DB backup happens on such a high frequency that they could catch this (e.g. minute-to-minute).

So…how? Are you claiming they have oodles of logs and a perfect dork* to find suspicious JavaScript? If they had the latter wouldn’t they already be using it for security?

If you have some method that works do tell.

* https://www.alibabacloud.com/blog/what-is-dork_600025

It's a little worse than that. From now on, blackhats will have a favorite #1 browser to pentest, at least for the next few weeks.

And who's going to take the bet that they'll find nothing? Not me.

It is very strange to me that their attitude is "no one was impacted" and this is "hypothetical". Any serious company would immediately consider this to be a case where everyone was impacted! This is like coming home to the worst neighborhood on the planet to find your door wide open, and immediately putting on a blindfold so you can continue to pretend nothing's changed.

The play button is for an audio overview, afaict.

> We never would've gotten GPT-3 and GPT-4 if this didn't happen.

"We never would've gotten [thing that exists today] if [thing that happened] didn't happen", is practically a tautology. As you saw from the willingness of Microsoft to throw compute as well as to hire ex-OpenAI folks, as you can see from the many "spinoffs" others have started (such as Anthropic), whether or not we would've gotten GPT-3 and GPT-4 is immaterial to this discussion. What people here are asking for is open AI, which we might, all things considered, have actually gotten from a bona fide non profit.

“Man, as a social animal who has the gift of language, is born to prattle and to pour out twaddle that does much damage when serious work is being attempted. Some people produce copious amounts of twaddle and others very little.”

— Charlie Munger, The Psychology of Human Misjudgment

> 100% eliminates chance of accidental secret checkin or upload

You've never worked with humans, have you?

What does “losing track of the flow” mean to you?

Not sure if you intended this, but you just turned causal into casual.

Let me teach you a good philosophy. When you see an article that begins with “what do you believe without any evidence” and “this is what I said without thinking”, do not expect good thinking to follow.

There is no such thing as "conventional wisdom". Wisdom will guide you to treat convention not as instruction, but as input - one of many.

PG did not go far enough here. The problem isn't 'bad advice', the problem is that advice is no substitute for thinking. Neither is looking at what Steve Jobs did at Apple for that matter: what really works is to think about all of this, considering problems from multiple angles.

However, as Bertrand Russel said:

“Most people would rather die than think and many of them do!”

Which also applies to businesses!

   Indeed, another prediction I'll make about founder mode is that once we figure out what it is, we'll find that a number of individual founders were already most of the way there — except that in doing what they did they were regarded by many as eccentric or worse.

Based on that quote, here's my attempt to define 'founder mode' in terms of what TFA is suggesting: be an independent thinker. Does it sound like common sense? It probably is. But remember what Charles Munger said:

    The so-called common sense is common sense that ordinary people do not have. When we say that someone has common sense, we are actually saying that he has common sense that ordinary people do not have. People think that it is easy to have common sense, but in fact it is very difficult.

Maybe you are being downvoted because this is “obvious”, but as it turns out it is not obvious enough for the TFA itself to not have this error:

    it prophesied that on January 1, 2000, computers the world over would be unable to process the thousandth-digit change from 19 to 20 as 1999 rolled into 2000 and would crash

Not surprised that they deny the severity of the issue, but I am quite surprised they didn't inform the FBI and/or try to have you arrested. Baby steps?

TFA says finding product market fit is when 40%+ of users would be “very disappointed” if your product disappeared.

Wait! That means, if the only person using your product is your mom, you have PMF.

Based on what you said and the TFA, this is Superhuman’s PMF approach (i.e., perversely satisfy this metric by filtering users).

I don’t understand where this “engine” is, but perhaps that’s it.

First, I highly doubt this story, because it’s just too perfect of a fodder for your puff piece marketing blog post.

Second, you did not find any confirmed North Koreans at all! Come on, now. How trustworthy are you with such a clickbait title?

I made https://rascalhq.com, just to experiment with embeddings and because I wanted to see what kind of “advice” Shakespeare and Warren Buffet would give me for various queries.

https://www.themarginalian.org/ has a Bitcoin address for donations on the page, and has received significant donations through that.

All gen AI is unattributed plagiarism, but not all unattributed plagiarism is gen AI.

> I'm not sure that I think his arguments work for people who are suffering or struggling to get by.

    Here lies Epictetus,
    a slave maimed in body, 
    the ultimate in poverty,
    and the favored of the gods.

I see that someone has already mentioned him in this thread, but his epitaph is a direct address to your doubt.

It’s Gandhi.

Is there any evidence that Apple has actually made this "threat"? I'm not seeing anything other than what Patreon has claimed (and it seems that they are only recently going to begin to allow iOS purchases, which might mean they are bringing this upon themselves).

I am suspicious, because the specific change to per-creation billing is overwhelmingly positive for Patreon (and, as you pointed out, not for its users), from a business economics perspective (assuming they don't lose too many users over this). It also seems odd for Apple to press that point specifically.

On the one hand, we enjoy real flowering plants more than fake ones, and delight in anticipating their blossoming, though it is the fake plants that are ever blooming and ever lasting.

On the other hand, the only moment in which you have direct control and could actually affect is the current one.

When Pinocchio made his wish, was “agency” all he wanted, or was there something more?

> Except this LLM would have a real shot of beating humans in open-domain problem solving.

At some point we need to start recognizing LLMs for what they are and stop making outlandish claims like this. A moment of reflection ought to reveal that “open domain problem solving” is not what an LLM does.

An LLM, could not, for example, definitively come up with the three laws of planetary motion like Kepler did (he looked at the data), in the absence of a prior formulation of these laws in the training set.

TFA describes a need for scoring, at scale, qualitative results to human queries. Certainly that’s important (it’s what Google is built upon), but we don’t need to make outlandish claims about LLM capabilities to achieve it.

Or maybe we do if our next round of funding depends upon it.

If people only died by accident, it implies the absence of murder, which implies either a state of enlightenment or non-humanness. I doubt we can meaningfully conjecture on such a world.