ArcHound

That's not something you want to see before IPO. Wonder if it'll have an effect on the potential investors and thus the stock price. Also wonder if it then would have left-over effect on other AI stocks.

My popcorn is ready, seems we're up for an interesting week or several.

Oh no. Anyway.

- Jeremy Clarkson

As a fun exercise, read the comments in this thread as a justification for removing SWE jobs and getting rid of human development completely in favour of LLMs. As a bonus, imagine you're an executive and you are saving a truckload of money and headaches that come with dealing with people.

> This experience and breadth compounds, but it has to be maintained.

And that's the only reference in this article to this very real problem. How do you maintain your expertise when you stop doing technical work? It'll hold for a while on its own, but then it falls.

But that's a Q1 problem, so no biggie.

That is news to me. This is pretty bleak for a normal person - it's profitable to take an established community, turn it into a propaganda echo chamber, scale down engineering until it kinda works and all that on a whims of a billionaire and it's even profitable.

I guess this is why we can't have nice things.

Good points. Viewing it from the lens of the original business model or mission, it's a disaster.

I don't think it's right, but I can see how a billionaire just completely overrides the company mission and business model after they buy enough shares or something.

Maybe there are other non-obvious use-cases for other companies, where you're effectively buying the user base to then pull the rug.

A lot of the original customers will just accept such a change. See Twitter or GitHub.

True, but there's one very happy shareholder and that's enough. The rest of them are just holding the bag.

I want to agree with you. But I cannot.

The matter of the fact is that most governments and newspapers publish on twitter (now X) still. It also serves the purpose of amplifying Musk to a large audience.

If you wanted to transform a public forum into a right -wing echo chamber, then the transformation is a massive success and the platform continues to achieve all relevant objectives.

Yes, for sure, it's not a serious model. But I've observed exactly this scenario a couple of times, so it tracks well for me.

I'm not surprised. If you have one terrible candidate, in the first round you can vote for whomever you like. In the second round, however, you need to ensure they lose, so you vote for the opposite party, whomever they might be.

I hope username checks out.

Leaving parenting duties to the overall average of the internet bound together by corporate scammers is not something I will ever do.

Oh, the usual: make sure they overhear "my kids would NEVER", look at them with a signature look of superiority, smh literally...

The idea is to send a signal that this is not ok. I have no guarantees on effectiveness. What especially gets me going is when the kid eats and looks at some trash like baby shark while it's blasting loud everywhere.

I think I get what you're saying, but it's really an unfortunate example.

I think it's still better to ban these obviously harmful things and to reduce exposure to them as much as possible.

And how did that approach worked for them?

What bothers me the most is targeting children. I see why we need to make axes or chemicals. But these come with disclaimers and labels as well as common sense that they are harmful.