otagekki

Wait, it even features a windows 95? nice easter egg

what if someone does this to the Windows OS?

So the that the Norwegian sovereign wealth funds become the exit liquidity for early OpenAI investors? Why? If they want to invest in AI, they are better off developing hardware that could host AI models and making their own models (making an in-house Cerebras, or buying hat firm entirely) off opensource ones, and running them in their own datacenters than investing into a bubble caused by circular investment.

Kind of normal I think, at the companies I've worked for, most outages were caused by a change in production, for which the impact was not properly assessed.

Unfortunately Uber and the likes have been doing this but nobody batted an eye

Indeed! For now let's enjoy it as much as we can. The VC-subsidized price of $20 won't last eternally I'm afraid

This could actually be extremely convenient to use in many parts of Africa where place simply do not have addresses. Right now what we do is latitude longitude, which works wonders but can a bit clunky especially in cities

I haven't read that book, but asked for a summary. Honestly, I cannot see software being regulated the same way as food industry is, for the very simple reason that software can trivially cross borders (legally or not) while food cannot. Regulating that industry to prevent any progress by erecting bureaucratic barriers in a given country will just kill the industry in that country and make it thrive elsewhere where it's less regulated. As a result, the regulation-freak country will lose any of its competitive advantages due to lesser efficiency.

Doing this on a global scale requires "CFC-ban"-levels of global coordination which I cannot see happening in the world we live in today. Just look at how global CO2 reduction and climate change is being handled today at the global scale.

Really? It is up to them if they want to use what I wrote. Why would I get fined or jailed for not writing documentation? Good luck trying to prove any wrongdoing. If you want support feel free to hire me to do that, or just do it yourself, pretty much like big tech is doing right now with open source

A serious security issue indeed, if someone knows the hash.

How I manage this is that every time I want to open-source a previously private feature, I take the changeset diff and apply that to the files in the public repository. Same features, but plausibly different hash.

Transitioning from CentOS 7 to RedHat 8 and 9 at my former company's private cloud has smooth for most teams, pareto-style, with 80% of migration-related incidents caused by the 20% of the teams that did some really weird changes to the VM's OS that was no longer allowed under RHEL 8 or 9.

At first, I thought it was just to reduce the complexity of managing hardening rules for several OS and OS versions.

For the AI/Robot tax, the pessimistic view is that the legal state of the world is such that such tax can and will be evaded. Now not only the LLMs put humans out of a job because an LLM or a SD model mimicks their work, but the financial gains have now been hidden away in tax havens through tax evasion schemes designed by AIs. And even if through some counter-AIs we manage to funnel the financial gains back to the people, what is now the incentive for capital owners to invest and keep investing in cutting-edge AI, if the profits are now so meagre to justify the investment?

> Because a human has fundamental output limitations (parallel capacity, time, lifespan) and a machine does not.

Industrialization as we know it would have never happened if we artificially limit progress, just so that people could still have jobs. I guess you could hold the same kind of argument for the copists, when printing became widespread; for horses before the automobile; or telephone operators before switches got automated. Guess what they have become now. Art made by humans can still exist although its output will be marginal compared to AI-generated art.

LLMs are not humans but are used by humans. In the end the beneficiary is still a human.