Since you apparently do not know what an AI Winter is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What a stupid response. If you want a real discussion, maybe accept that the world is not black and white but shades of gray.

In the matter at hand, yes, people can learn, even if they do not do it always and the ones that refuse, you can get rid of. No, the same is not true for LLMs. They cannot learn from what you explain to them. And that makes them unusable for most things that are a tiny bit more advanced.

Well Hitler did other amazing things in the morning, like mandating a sudden change driving from left side of the road to right side of the road overnight. Douchelanders were ecstatic to wake up to signs facing the wrong way and roads with turn pockets on the wrong side. It felt very Douche, and gave them much pride.

That should be "by now noticeable".

Typo. "not" -> "now". For some reason my motor-cortex thinks it needs to do that and I do not always catch it.

Because what makes games good is creativity and ideas. LLMs cannot do these. And slop is by not noticeable to most people.

The funny thing is that the AI bros deeply believe they are the future, when it is pretty clear they are not.

Depends. Are they there because they think it's a fast way to a high paying job, or are they there because they like doing the work? Think back to an old slashdot article where some construction worker took a two-week coding bootcamp expecting to get a high paying job afterwards, then blamed AI when nobody would hire him. The rsilvergun-alikes lapped it up, AI this, AI that, it took his jerb, even though at no point in history would a two-week coding bootcamp suddenly make you a software developer when you had no prior experience. But even then, getting an actual CS degree doesn't either, nor does not having a CS degree mean you can't.

Nobody wants a shitty developer just because they have a CS degree, and nobody ever did. Shit, look at angle of sphere, who talks about how a CS degree is mandatory, insists on building shit with linkedlists, then wonders why somebody like me, without a CS degree, tells him how stupid that is when the application was obviously asking for a deque, which was years ago and to this day he still doesn't understand why because he's completely disinterested in how the underlying hardware works.

The answer is: It depends on how they're using it. AI makes a fantastic learning tool. But ONLY if you're using it for that. The other day I wanted to implement a CLDAP ping for a georedundant AD client, which there were no libraries for. The documentation on that is annoyingly sparse, but an AI tool talked me through it, answered all clarifying questions I had, the answers to which were scattered all over the MSDN docs that would take forever to find, and the implementation worked perfectly.

Humans learn or get fired. LLMs do not.

Greed. It has happened in the crapto space time and again. It also has been happening in regular banking, until they got regulated very strictly.

No argument. This is not for practical use as it does not make any sense on the engineering side at all. This is a stunt to boost business. This is about pushing idiots already deeply in awe of LLMs to use them even more. A new and basically untried technology that we already know has massive problems, but can perform impressive stunts.

This whole thing sound very, very wrong. Like they stole this themselves and that is the reason they even have the money.

Poor choice...that was an unmitigated disaster.

Taxes are always on consumers. Full stop. You pay for it one way or another.

I don't know how France operates in this regard, but if it's anything like the US, they don't have to add below-the-line fees like this. They can just bake it into the price, rate, etc. Either way, the consumer always ends up paying.

That's interesting -- so basically the ISP just blames somebody, and whoever they blame is who gets taxed. That's going to prove very difficult as TLS improves and ends up added to more places, unless they literally tax every kind of content. CDNs already commonly carry Netflix traffic, and as time goes on you're only going to be able to take an educated guess what kind of traffic it is by its burst pattern. As for where it originates from, France would have to give ISPs permission to violate all kinds of its own privacy laws. Unless they're taxing backbone providers, which would include transit traffic. And if they did that...ohhhhh boy...

VPNs don't have to operate anywhere in Europe for this to work. At all. If they send it to say Proton or PIA, the recipient can wipe their ass with the invoice and mail it back completely brown, and there's nothing France can do about it as they're outside of France's jurisdiction. France has already tried to regulate content beyond their borders by requiring google to censor searches for anything they ask for anywhere in the world and under any ass crack or snail shell that a French Fry might be found in. That didn't go over well. They've done other weird shit like kidnap Pavel Durov for not sufficiently censoring telegram to their standards, even if it didn't happen in France. If they tried to tax outside of their jurisdiction, that's going to go over just as well. Just don't go to France if you care about free speech or privacy -- problem solved on your end.

It sounds like you very badly want to impose your will on other people. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I personally maybe get 5 or so hours in a week at best. Lately I've been doing a lot more diving. But diving doesn't necessarily do what you're asking for either.

We live in a free society. That means freedom to decide for yourself what you want to do at any given moment, good or bad, and deal with the consequences on your own, good or bad. I think you'd prefer a more authoritarian system, like say socialism or fascism, which generally ban anything that the leadership decides for you that isn't in your best interest, which always varies, often without any rhyme or reason, typically because of what they think will happen, even if there's no evidence to support that belief. Though usually it's guided by a fear that people will grow to reject their system, which historically has always been the case.

I personally don't believe in telling people what to think, I just tell them when there's objective evidence that they're wrong, or in your case, that what you're asking for historically doesn't provide the outcome that you think it will.