greatvaluebrand

I couldn’t begin the hazard to guess how much advertising spend is actually just a way to buy editorial rights over the content, but that number is definitely not zero.

I feel like if Disney board members were a little more committed to making content people want to watch and a little less committed to subsidizing money-losing boondoggles for purely social engineering purposes, then maybe there would not be a need to do this sort of thing?

Serious question: how is a consumer of software can I tell that it was written with bad abstractions? Is there a signal that software is well written and maintainable other than very high cost?

I’m willing to believe that software you authored or designed yourself is better than whatever Claude spits out. I’m not as confident that the cost benefit ratio pencils out anymore. In fact, I would say most software does not need to be particularly good or well thought out. The vast majority of things I need software to do for me day-to-day at work are so niche and specialized that I tend to prefer AI slop that I can get now for a few tens of dollars at a time and something expertly crafted by a true artisan for thousands of times higher cost.

AI is just software and you are liable for harms from its use the same way you would be for other software. If you sell AI as a product and harms occur where you misrepresented risk to the user, there is contract and tort law for that.

I feel like our laws generalize to AI and we should stop treating it as some kind of person with self agency that we don’t know how to police. Prosecute one OpenAI researcher whose agent is uncontrolled and commits a felony. One example. Researchers would find a way to make a sandbox that works.