symfoniq

Wow. Clearly this isn’t a company I should be trusting to keep my email secure.

Except the robots actually cost far more than $1/hour, it’s just that the owners have enough capital to operate at a massive loss until the carpenters have largely been replaced. Only then will we learn what the robots actually cost.

AI “customer service” is so incredibly bad. I’ve not had a single interaction that an AI agent could solve. It’s just a huge waste of my time and an increase in aggravation.

And adding to this:

Does anyone really believe that the first company to AGI would decide not to release it in the interests of safety? Of course not. The first company to AGI would not forfeit their historic opportunity.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that in the name of safety, far less capable models are being held back by the very very same companies that are selling the AGI dream.

This is an industry that cannot speak, unless it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

Car companies sell mostly the same car every year. They don’t have billions (or trillions) of dollars of debt riding on the next model they release being substantially better and cheaper (closer to profitability) than the previous one.

These AI companies have been selling AGI as coming any day for a while now. If it doesn’t arrive soon, the safety angle may be the only spin that keeps the massive (and required) investments pouring in.

If instead the narrative became that LLM progress was slowing, we’d almost certainly be looking at the next global recession.

At this point, there is too much money in AI for the truth to have much of a chance.

This is exactly what I think is happening.

I resent (okay, resemble) this.

I don’t know why we should believe that Anthropic is actually doing this, instead of the alternative explanation that LLM advancements are slowing in general.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

They’re using Electron to write proofs now?

In the same way that “Anthropic” apparently means misanthropic, we can probably add “AI safety” to the list of newspeak.

Or the "unicontext" that Derek Thompson recently wrote about.

I can nod along when I hear and read people talking about the dangers of these technologies and the endgame of their creators; and then suddenly very weird when everyone except me is nodding along that the answer must be similar (but different) technology!

It's as if technologists are stuck in a room of mirrors, unable to imagine a world in which "solutions" don't ultimately just continue to feed technology's increasingly anti-human takeover of everything.

I think the GP just showed that in a particular scenario, Ruby isn’t “radically slower” than Go. So how is the comparison not relevant?

As someone who spent 15+ years doing Ruby/Rails, it’s nice to see this land.

That said, these days you’ll pry the BEAM from my cold, dead hands. It’s hard to go back to any other concurrency story.