blablablerg

Why not, his linkedin profile is public and easily findable. This is not doxxing.

To ascribe good faith here to Zuckerberg is quite the leap considering his history. Why are his main products basically walled gardens then?

It is a business decision to open source his models, because he has been behind the curve from the start. Do you believe if he had chatGPT, he would open source/weight it? I don't think so, he would treat it like Instagram.

The point is, AI/LLMs are seen as the next frontier. If one of the closed ones becomes dominant, then that company can use its user base to attack Zuckerberg's platforms. That google failed with google+, does not mean the next competitor will.

A telling sign is how he integrated his AI into whatsapp. It seems out of place to me to have an LLM integrated into whatsapp, but he desperately wants a part of the AI cake.

Ah yes, a reply in true hacker fashion, if people only were that binary. Just don't use, then addiction wouldn't be a thing! Problem solved. We can see it all around, the now 55 years war on drugs has been a great success!

I'm not sure if you ever had to deal with someone addicted close to you, but it is heartbreaking. They are already ashamed of themselves and suffer. The last thing you want to do is take away their dignity, because that shuts them out and puts the path to recovery even further. They are still humans you know, just with a problem. They need help, not a trashing. That they are already doing to themselves.

Yes.

> Automated snack vending machine is a solved problem since nearly a century.

Yes, but as stated by the Anthropic guy, a LLM/AI running a business is not. Or would you just let it run wild in the real world?

And I agree that there is a PR angle here, for Anthropic could have tested it in a more isolated environment, but it is a unique experiment with current advancements in technology, so why wouldn't that be newsworthy? I found it insightful, fun and goofy. I think it is great journalism, because too often journalism is serious, sad and depressing.

> None of the world class journalists seemed to care. They are probably too badly paid for that.

The journalists were clearly taking the piss.They concluded experiment was a disaster. How negative does the author want them to be about a silly experiment?

This was just a little bit of fun and I quite enjoyed the video. The author is missing the point.

It is an interesting article but I find the slides inserted without much context to be confusing.. or is that part of the game?

I'll go against the grain here. If I invite someone a couple of times, and constantly get declined no way I'll invite that person anymore, because I make an effort to invite you. Declining (repeatedly) makes me feel like an ass for inviting you. And I want friends that respond, not friends that reject me. Wanting to be invited just to decline sounds.. egotistical to me. A relationship is a two way street, and being that shy is a you problem.

To even be more cynical, maybe Alexei wanted something more from Anna? Because I certainly haven't seen people invite someone to repeatedly get declined.

Postmodernity is said to be a culture of fragmentary sensations, eclectic nostalgia, disposable simulacra, and promiscuous superficiality, in which the traditionally valued qualities of depth, coherence, meaning, originality, and authenticity are evacuated or dissolved amid the random swirl of empty signals. -- Baudrillard

Nice vibe writing.

Who claimed that?

And you don't think he would adjust like Linus for example?

Instead of an anthropocentric vision, you present here a "compucentric" vision, reminiscent of the works of Douglas Hofstadter, where the universe renders code, awareness reprograms, and everything is a recursive pattern. (This is Hacker News after all.)

The final authority in this story is then the universal computer (for lack of an operator or programmer of the computer) which executes this recursive function, creating these evolving forms of awareness and such.

The anthropocentric vision, in that we are the source of or own reality, is then for me instead much more believable, since the "compucentric" vision is after all thought up by a human without any evidence pointing toward the existence of such an universal computer.

Only a small percentage of people are willing to pay for internet services. It is psychology and competition between the sites who offer services for free vs requiring payment. Paying for a service is a barrier to entry, while getting it for free and selling your data instead is not perceived as such. That is why all the big sites never would've taken off if they had paywalls.

It is, because you are wasting time reinventing the wheel. Also if something is already well researched, you might miss intricacies, traps, optimizations etc. previous researchers have stumbled upon.