hnthrow0287345

They'll only get to claim a hollow victory because AGI is impossible to rigorously define. None of the regulating bodies of consumer products will be able to define it better than academics. They'll use marketing to make those claims and there will be legal battles that keep it in a gray area.

They'll go for that because it's easier than actually inventing the 'sci-fi' AGI, shareholders keep making money, and it keeps them getting paid to keep going. If any of them actually do succeed, then that little deception will be peanuts.

It's not the only thing, but it's a big one

Cheaper labor, for sure

>Are those excess returns not work? What are they?

Normally you'd get a low percentage fee instead of getting all of the returns unless you got that capital for free (inheritance?), so yes, you are a worker compared to the person controlling the capital.

>In writing tasks Qwens hallucinations and bullshitting are much easier to spot because it doesn't have the sleek vocabulary and wordsmithing skills to disguise its ignorance.

Can't wait until we just remove the language from the LLMs for accuracy and efficiency

"read code" and "debug code" will still be valuable and one of the ways you learn that is "write code". You might have gotten people who can only write code from cheap contracting places, but the companies choosing to go that route were shooting themselves in the foot with that decision before AI came along.

Even from offshore contractors, I still haven't run into anyone who can only write code except for someone just starting out.

>But does it actually matter?

Probably not, because most of us are boring. Most of us don't have stalkers. Most of us don't have government clearances. Most of us aren't politically adjacent, significant, or know someone who is. Most of us are not wealthy. Most of us will not be a target by the relatively small pool of humans who could actually do anything with that data.

I might have a few chains where I do connect to someone important (degrees of connection to Kevin Bacon), but that isn't directly useful here.

The point is it's still private information and it must be protected, if only out of common sense or respect for your fellow humans. We don't need damages to defend this point.

>What kind of 'useful'?

Someone says it's useful to them. If you get a consensus where >50% find it useful, then it's probably useful.

>I think Sam Altman is an asshole and I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.

That's why he chose the OpenAI logo

If anything though, this shows that at least tech driven hype bubbles can stay around way longer than we think if we are looking at it from a product POV.

This just means short sellers might have a hard time sinking a hype-category stock with reasoned research because the irrationality keeps it afloat.

This is why the 'craft' should be left to open source for most commercial software. The business reality just doesn't care for it.

Only when you have a PR problem does the business switch back to signalling quality, like Microsoft, although it remains to be seen if they still have the quality part. Most of the craftspeople get to say 'told you so' but also it looks like a sinking ship to them. Once the PR problem is gone, it's back to shipping at the expense of quality.

This cycle conflicts with the idea of a craft, which is that you should do it that way all/most of the time. The business will stop caring about quality long enough that your skills will erode, making it a bad mix. Trying to practice a craft where you aren't in control of this cycle is corrosive to the spirit.

All we can really do is point and laugh. Boards don't listen to workers, and I bet most boards will be okay with a little spending oopsie-daisy because it was 'try shit and see if it works out'

I doubt it, but I've seen dumber stuff like laying off people because they think AI will replace them

PE has a bad reputation, maybe for LBOs, maybe for buying up doctors' offices and retirement homes, and hospitals and making them objectively worse in terms of patient care.

My family doctor underwent that along with several of her local peers and got out from under it and started her own practice. I'm obviously not her only patient, so yes, heightening stress on caregivers by demanding more work to drive profits higher is justifiable of a bad reputation.

Leaving things like medical care, food, water, shelter at the mercy of for-profit dynamics leaves the possibility open that those services stop being provided because it is unprofitable at the expense of the population.

America is deciding it likes profit over its population.