ReliantGuyZ

Because most PC peripherals (mice, keyboards, microphones, controllers, USB headphones, detachable hard drives) are still USB-A on the other end of their cable. Yes this is changing, but in this case I appreciate them acknowledging the reality on the ground and not creating a situation where there are many dongles afoot.

That's an interesting point regarding crypto. My guess is that most young people have very low exposure to crypto, with it being kind of a niche subcultural thing at this point after its height of cultural relevance in 2021, whereas AI is simply everywhere and is inescapable.

And if you can run those strong models at home for free, why would hosting them be a successful business for any of these providers?

Profitable maybe, in terms of having low costs, but why pay Google or whoever when you can do it yourself for cheaper/"free"?

By my estimation, there is a point where these models are "good enough" for the vast vast majority of all appropriate tasks, after which point further investment by the major labs will have diminishing returns. While they might stay ahead by some measure, the open models will be good enough too, and I assume significantly cheaper like they are now.

Or AGI hits and this theory collapses, but that's feeling less likely every day.

I mostly use my Kindle to read books from my local library's digital catalog. The Libby app hooks into many (all?) US library systems, so I use my phone to check out a book and it's available immediately to download. This is hugely convenient and feels magical since it doesn't cost anything.

This only addresses one axis of your concern, but if they are accessing YouTube via desktop browser (or Firefox on Android!), the "Youtube-shorts block" extension gets rid of the Shorts UI. You can still watch Shorts, it will just display them in the normal video UI without infinite scrolling. It's a huge quality of life boost.

Although obviously this does nothing for those using the mobile or TV apps.

It's shocking and offensive to artists and to like-minded others because AI labs have based the product that is replacing them off of their existing labor with no compensation. It would be one thing to build a computerized artist that out-competes human artists on merit (arguably happening now), this has happened to dozens of professions over hundreds of years. But the fact that it was built directly off of their past labors with no offer, plan, or even consideration of making them whole for their labor in the corpus is unjust on its face.

Certainly there are artists with inflated egos and senses of self-importance (many computer programmers with this condition too), but does this give us moral high ground to freely use their work?

How many people is it OK to exploit to create "AI"?

Yes, but it took 15 years after the bubble popped for life via internet to really cement for our society in a broader sense. The bubble mechanics still played out, even if the ultimate result was a new paradigm.

I'm unclear on what people see in the current AI tech advancements that makes them think it will contribute to better manufacturing. The new feature of LLMs that makes them so interesting is their ability accept input and flexibly follow arbitrary instructions, meaning they're really good for varied work, especially when there are a wide range of acceptable answers ("creative work"). Everything I know about manufacturing at scale is that you want a person or machine that follows a tiny instruction set (at least in comparison to the potential flexibilities of an LLM) and nails the execution every time. This seems to me like the complete opposite of the strengths of an AI system like the ones that Wall Street are cheering.

> Tho nowadays that means a trip to a FedEx store for me

I've really appreciated my local library for allowing 20ish pages of printing per day, which has allowed me to limp through the no-printer lifestyle. Plus I usually grab a DVD movie while I'm there.

Life's good in the mid-2000s.

By all accounts the sale agreement came together rapidly in the light of dark revelations about the state of Blizzard's work culture. I think the company has just been authentically bad without that pressure

Yes he does now, though if I remember correctly he makes absolutely zero claims about privacy or security enhancements and focuses on the region-shifting capabilities (especially as a Brit who frequently travels abroad)

Is it more expensive to find a new customer or keep an existing one? Sure, for lots of these games, continuing support means pouring money into a product which has already been paid for, and that investment means little to the continuing payoff of that product. However I would argue at this point in VR's tenuous life, Meta is burning its existing customers (its early adopter evangelists) in the hope that new ones will materialize. But then again they've run the numbers and I haven't,

Autoplaying video right at the top. Never closed a tab so fast.