almatabata

> There's a strange DEI phobia some folks have picked up

The shitty half-assed way companies implemented it, helped make it really unpopular.

I did not say to trust it. I do not need to trust it.

If I run my own tests on my own codebase I will definitely use some objective time measurement method and a subjective one. I really want to know if there is a big difference.

I really wonder if its just the individuals bias showing. If you are pro-AI you might overestimate one, and if you are against it you might under-estimate it.

> Interestingly the developers predict that AI will make them faster, and continue to believe that it did make them faster, even after completing the task slower than they otherwise would!

In this case clearly anecdotes are not enough. If that quote from the article is accurate, it shows that you cannot trust the developers time perception.

I agree, its only one study and we should not take it as the final answer. It definitely justifies doing a few follow up evaluations to see if this

Aren't most of those lawyers the select few that can afford to go into politics?

> But radar and ultrasound did not cost a lot and he got rid of those too, suggesting it was more than cost that made him go vision only.

They did get rid of the radar at a moment when there was a shortage of parts. They had the choice, ship now without the part, or wait and ship less cars.

Maybe that was always the plan, and the shortage only accelerated the decision.

Back when they started, lidar cost a lot of money. They could not have equipped all cars with it.

The issue came when he promised every car would become a robotaxi. This means he either has to retrofit them all with lidar, or solve it with the current sensor set. It might be ego as well, but adding lidar will also expose them to class action suits.

The promise that contributed to the soaring valuation, now looks like a curse that stops him from changing anything. It feels a bit poetic.

thanks for clarifying.

I know, but the article mentions that a separate ruling will be made about that pirating.

quote: “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in the decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

This tells me Anthropic acquired these books legally afterwards. I was asking if during that purchase, the seller could add a no training close to the sales contract.

If a publisher adds a "no AI training" clause to their contracts, does this ruling render it invalid?

They can definitely hire 2-5 people to do something, and at least try to crack down.

Just because you cannot "solve" an issue, does not mean you should do nothing. By that logic valve should not implement VAC, because after all, cheaters will always find a way.

They play the anti-cheat game of cat and mouse, because if they do not, users will stop playing. No one wants to play with cheaters unless they are cheating.

They could definitely invest some resources into this. But they have no monetarily incentive thus they do nothing. I fully expect legal action or fear of it, will eventually make them do something.

I am not even sure this administration is cutting it with the goal of causing populations to rebel against corrupt politicians.

> I think history has shown you just end up starving the powerless (folks in power don't care) and change doesn't necessarily happen.

I know. I was not specifically arguing that it was definitely going to happen in all or even any current scenario. I just wanted to make the case that giving aid to countries with corrupt governments can definitely keep them in power longer.

I am not making the case, that we should sacrifice starving people, in the hopes of triggering a revolution. We just should stay cognizant of the fact, that foreign aid can influence internal political balances between factions. After analysis it might be, that we have to accept helping a dictator by stabilizing his country, if it saves more lives.