No they won't. Trump will simply move his Gold House to Aspen, CO. Problem solved.

I hate to say I told you so, but..... I told you so! The economics of capital and resource intensive AI services coupled with low demand needs somebody to step up and pay for it. It's not the users, who don't value AI enough to cough up real money and so must be tricked into using it for free. It's no longer the investors, who have put in real money for the last 3 years and are starting to ask for real returns on their investment, not a Ponzi scheme. The last resort to pay for AI are the advertisers. Like advertising in search, advertising in AI will cause the service to degrade and lose its value.

And that's why I use adblockers etc. Because, it's not my job to subsidise the free products with my eyeballs. If it's free, then it's free. If it's free, but you want something in return, then it's a seedy bait-and-switch tactic designed to bypass the normal pricing mechanism. Money is the normal mechanism used for regulating supply and demand.

Tut tut. I am not surprised anyone would say this if they have a very narrow exposure to human beings, and no children. Anyone who has children, or knows somebody who has children, would not be surprised that anyone expected that these things actually would work. In particular, your original impulse is spot on. You really should tut tut and say that these companies are predatory and lying about the capabilities of their products.

I thought you were going to say that Linus is not a skyscraperator! Don't change the analogy mid-thread please, it's confusing!

That is the nature of bubbles. It's not all lemmings who jump the cliff. It's also hunters who think they are smart enough to stop just before the cliff edge. And then there's hunters who think the other hunters will fall anyway but they don't want to miss out and will be able to stop in time. The ones who stay home don't bring back any food.

That's a completely backwards view of the GDPR. It's easy to comply if you build your site from scratch. However, if you insist on using noncompliant infrastructure solutions to build your site, then of course you'll have headaches and software rewrites and annoying popup hacks. That's on you (or your boss). Alternatively, make the right design choices initially and you'll be fine.

You are clearly wrong on that. Ask yourself what the purpose of the GDPR is and it becomes very easy to write software from scratch that complies.

Your life is not worth ruining over some digital currency.

Not to mention Amiga had visualizers before people even knew what Windows was..

In fact, music visualizers existed even before people knew what windows were!

Isn't that the train driver? I thought the engineer is the one shovelling coal into the furnace and making sure that the tank doesn't explode?

Mod parent up. I use gen AI all the time when I search for man pages and python docs. And by use, I mean I scroll past the results text as far as I need to until there's something resembling a link that's not an advertisement. Then I click the link.

That's not in the job description. Companies need to dial back the expectations on employees. Especially if they treat their employees as disposable contractors.

"Secret trick destroys AI" is bullshit. What is not bullshit is that for less common tokens, the conditional distributions of their occurrence in language depend on a relatively small number of examples. This is not an LLM property, it's a property of the language data itself. Also known as the hapax problem. Any language generator, including LLMs, is constrained by this fact. It has nothing to do with the architecture.

In practical terms, this means if you have a learning machine that tries to predict a less common token from some context (either directly like an LLM, or as an explicit intermediate step), then the local output will be strongly affected if it sees a single new context in the training data, such as when someone is poisoning a topic.

There are no solutions for this in the current ML learning paradigm. The system designers can make the system less sensitive to the tokens in the training data, but this comes at a price of being less relevant, due to deliberately discounting newly encountered facts against a implicit or explicit prior. Your example falls in this category.

It is fundamentally impossible to recognise the truth and value of a newly encountered datum without using a semantic model of reality. Statistical language models do not do this.

Even small amounts of garbage poison the AI models. This has already been shown to work. The argument that this guy's impact is immaterial to Meta is unproven.