Yes, there are some use cases where you want the LLM to essentially be a search engine on steroids. In that case, you need one that's online and vacuums up the Internet every so often. Essentially Google 2.
But for a lot of use cases a model that is occasionally updated will do just fine.
For similar reasons (I work on projects with serious security demands) I've gone down the rabbit hole to get local LLMs working and I'm pretty happy now, but it was quite a journey.
We now have stuff like Ollama and LM Studio that can run models locally, open models that have sufficiently large rolling windows, and things like privateGPT as a glue to feed in your own documents. Or Anything LLM if you want an all-in-one solution (though in my tests it didn't quite work as well).
We're getting there. In a few years, we'll have local AI integrated into our desktops.
I personally wouldn't invest into any AI-as-a-Service companies anymore, at least not for generic models. Maybe for models custom-tailored to specific use cases. But for the generic "write a report for me" LLMs, there really isn't a need for any government to rely on cloud services anymore.
With the current LLMs, noe jobs that need actual experience will be replaced anytiime soon. While the language capabilities are impressive indeed, even the best LLMs have a troubled relation with facts, truth and consistency. They'll gladly invent facts, put together totally different pieces of information of completely miss the point. For any question that I've asked an AI that requires expert knowledge where I have that knowledge (and used the AI to check or to generate more ideas) the answers I've gotten were at best junior level, and often trainee at best.
LLMs are the 21st century Wikipedia - pretty nice on common everyday topics, surprisingly knowledgable on a weird set of totally fringe things, far from something that'd be accepted in polite society.
We'll see a bunch of dumb jobs replaced by AI that so far were done by humans because computers didn't have the object recognition or ability to understand natural language. The first level call center job level.
Different user bases. I'm a Linux fan, a couple Linux projects have my name in it. All my servers are Debian. But my notebook and desktop are Macs. Because when I need to get desktop things done, that's the platform that works best.
I waited a decade for the Linux desktop to get there and it didn't. Then I stopped waiting and started being productive.
Would I want to have a Linux desktop and application choices equal to what I have on the Mac? Absolutely. Do I expect it'll happen anytime soon? Absolutely not.
The decision to make its Affinity applications a one-time-purchase with no ongoing subscription fees has earned it a loyal fanbase
That is putting it mildly.
I am an occasional user. Once or twice a year I create something that needs proper DTP software. To pay for a subscription is complete nonsense, so for the past decade or so I made do with an ancient version of InDesign purchased before they switched everything to subscription. Obviously, that's not working too well anymore.
So I use the 30-day trial of Affinity Publisher, found it does 95% of what I did with InDesign and most of it equally well and some things even better. I'll find workarounds for the missing 5% (or I'll figure out that it does them after all, just hidden away somewhere, such as cross-document references).
The fact that it's a one-time purchase was the #1 deciding factor. Adobe's business model simply doesn't work for me. And certainly for thousands of people who are in similar positions. It might work well for those whose everyday professional tool is one or more Adobe products, but not for occasional users.
I was hoping for this one, especially given that the Tencent series is brilliant (though long-winded).
Then I watched the trailer and got the impression that it's another gender-swapped, dumbed-down, "for modern audiences" piece and decided I don't want to spoil my memory of one of the best SciFi books.
Is it what I fear it is? Or did they stay true to the books?
Rust will help with only a single class of vulnerabilities, but will not lead to secure development. Advertising rust as a magical way to write secure applications is disingenuous.
Absolutely true.
However, having solved one class of vulnerabilities is better than having solved no classes of vulnerabilities.
Rust is not a panacea, but it is a step forward.
Worse.
In C++ you can write unsafe code without even realising you've done so.
In Rust, you have to explicitly type the word "unsafe". And if that doesn't clue you in, nothing will.
Of course C++ has plenty of features, some of them are even secure.
You can also write perfectly secure code in C. Or in any programming language, really. Rumours have it that it may be possible even in Javascript.
But this is not what most programmers will do. 99% of software out there is written using the "it compiles, ship it" method. Compiler warnings are routinely ignored, and I bet you that less than 1 in 10 professional programmers have even read one book about secure development.
Therein lies the problem. Sure, you CAN write safe code in C++. But most code written in C++ will NOT be safe. That is why we need languages that enforce safety. Because people are people and we all know what would happen if the microwave instructions didn't tell you not to dry your hamster in it.
They had single income families. The women mended the clothes and prepared the food while the men worked in the field.
That is completely not true. One visit to a museum and you'll see men and women working the fields and other jobs. While some activities were gender-specific, most of the basic work wasn't, every hand was needed.
No work on Sunday or saint's days (there were a LOT of those).
True. This is what people often forget in comparison. They didn't have holidays in our sense today (i.e. several weeks off), but they had a metric ton of original holidays ("holy days").
Expecting to be paid $5 for $4 worth of work seems radical.
Because it's not true. People who are paid $5 typically bring a profit of $10. Some of that is used on common costs such as rent of the business, some is profit. Some of the profit is necessary for future investments such as research or business development, some goes to the shareholders.
Nobody is paid $5 for $4 worth of work, at least not for long. That's not how business works.
However, with the advent of agriculture, population increased, tribes became nations, technology developed, and life changed dramatically. Unless you were a member of the upper classes of society, working 10-14 hour days, 6 or even 7 days a week, was common. This held true over hundreds, even thousands of years.
Not universally true. We think of medieval peasants toiling all day, but one: Some of that was what we today call "house chores" and two: They had a lot more religious holidays and celebrations than we do. They would also adjust their work to the requirements of the farm, with long hours during planting and harvesting and much less work during the growing cycle or winter.
So a true comparison is more complex than throwing a few numbers of hours out there.
We also have a wrong conception at the other end of the spectrum. We know of a few kings that literally worked every day from sunrise to sunset on running their empire. For nobility, balls and other festivities were as much work as a business meal among diplomats is today.
Those are useless numbers.
I don't feel 28149123% more rich than my kid self, or whatever the number may be. GDP is not the only measurement, at the VERY least you need to compare purchasing power. $100 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $800 today.
Living standards are not one number, either. My parents didn't have smartphones and neither did I as a kid, mostly because they didn't exist, but also because $1000 per person in the house would've been a major purchase. But on the other hand, my parents owned a house, while families with a single income in my father's profession today couldn't afford that.
You oversimplify.
Though after reading "The Biggest Estate on Earth", I'd consider Australia an exception. The easy hunting and gathering was the result of centuries of careful land management.
What makes you think we did not have radical lefties in the 1970s, or earlier?
Where did I say that or what part exactly made you think that's what I was saying?
The effective solution is to cut back on social media, not work.
I don't see that as being mutually exclusive.
Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.
