I am not following. How is that at all significant? (and 300MB for a calculator is still pretty nuts)

Why should how rarely or not an application is used (which can be subjective) distract from the issue that the article poste is trying (albeit clumsily) to raise?

Absolutes like this ABSOLUTELY warrant a "citation needed" response.

Honestly, I just had a "I have thoughts, let me spit them out without thinking" moment with this post - unnecessary complexity (piles of dependencies, frameworks, etc) absolutely IS a big part of the problem.

This attitude, IMO, is a huge part of the fucking problem in the first place.

Software development needs to slow the hell down, to allow development to happen properly - resources need o be given so developers can take a machine and do what it needs to - no more, or less.

We need to stop shifting the blamer on costs (it's a bullshit excuse IMO; not WANTING to spend the resources, time and money to allow quality to shine =/= being unable to).

We need to stop blaming complexity when we don't give developers the time and space needed to explore that complexity and work with it.

Companies need to learn that gaining X amount of money slower than before is not only still earning X amount, but more worthwhile because the issues (and thus costs of dealing with them after) will be better mitigated,

So much in this fucking industry needs to change if software quality is to improve.

I'm not sorry; that's the most retarded thing I've heard today.

Work is called work because it's a job that needs doing. Period. Tasks need being done, the person is paid to get them done. You don't need to trade your mental and physical well being to get it done.

Wouldn't people who don't know about certain conditions being potentially problematic, those who are afraid to speak out, and those who willfully ignorant ALSO not speak out as well?

The jackoff advertisers, the jackoff CEOs who decide to pile on more ads, the people who try to gaslight those who notice and object, the people who act like their being apathetic means those who notice need to be apathetic as well / are wrong for not being apathetic, THEY ALL need to fuck all the way off a god damned cliff.

The issue with Anthropic wasn't with training itself, but with how it gathered the materials IIRC.

No doubt those things happen some of the time, but got any citations re: it being EXCLUSIVELY that? And not partially (or even largely) wanting control, for instance? OR at least partly being stubborn and unwilling to try different things?

*Want.

They WANT to have labor they can underpay, they damn well don't NEED it.

Stop falling for this trap; these comapneis WANT to do this kind of shenanigannery, they don't necessarily HAVE to.

Additionally (re: my first reply) isn't it also falling for the assumption that solely one factor has a particular cause, when you've not evaluated other contributory factors, taken said factors into consideration? IMO "SOLELY X causes Y" is not true in every last case ever.

That's assuming it is actually true in the first place though, doesn't it? Wouldn't just bying into this without question be at the least part of the problem (seeing companies are not immune to bending the truth or outright lying)?

Horseshit.

Asking for more options, more diversity in options isn't necessarily asking for THIS, THIS is a way it manifests itself - but not THE ONLY way it can manifest itself at all.