> But that narrative was the only thing that could have made the large LLMs profitable and it was what brought the employee-hating CEOs on board.

Doesn't have to be sustainable, just needs to keep businesses using them for long enough that critical business knowledge is lost among employees who become reliant upon the LLM providers for everything.

The question was never "Is this unsustainable if taken at face value", because the plot was never to sell useful services, it was to take over most US businesses by making them unable to run themselves. The question now is whether they managed to keep it going for long enough that this will happen, or whether the crash will happen before that to happen.

People often describe BigAI as a con. But BigAI is better described as a heist.

Because a lot of corps are saying the opposite right now, saying you'll be judge on your use of AI, and punished for your lack of use of it.

Which is why you get insane shit like people punching bullet points into ChatGPT telling it to expand it into a full email, and the recipient receiving it and putting that into ChatGPT to summarize it as a set of bullet points.

I'd say I'm glad the companies who have been doing this are the ones who'll eventually go tits up when the bill comes in (which is more than the cost of tokens, it's the lack of control over their own businesses), but the reality is that management isn't the group that'll suffer. The people fired for non-compliance with this stupidity are merely the first in a long line of people who'll get hurt despite never doing anything more than what their managers said they had to do.

This timeline absolutely sucks.

You put cameras on every surface. You end up with a spinning 360 degree view that you can unspin programmatically.

I'm not really seeing an issue TBH especially with how small and thin cameras are these days and, indeed, that moving them continually combining them with other views from cameras in the same sphere means you can almost certainly build up a higher quality image than you would with a single camera.

> You can hardly blame Google for that

You can, actually, blame Google for implementing an unnecessary code signing requirement that only works if Google is allowed to do business in your country.

Also, well done Google! You've just given millions of people entirely legitimate reasons to find workarounds your attempt to lock up Android, and entire Nation States a legitimate excuse to hack your operating system, or even ban it and support free forks.

It's not illegal, but it will almost always result in a mistrial and a referral to the Bar if done by a lawyer.

I love the fact that this article claims the specification fixes the "main barrier to Enterprise Adoption (of AI slop)" right after an article saying basically AI will never be secure and you need to stop pretending it ever will be.

So it's unreliable, removes business knowledge from the employees of a company and puts it in the hands of a hostile third party, and now it turns out it's insecure, but adoption of the slobtasystem is only being held back by some specification? Really?

Name an alternative to a spreadsheet that's simple to use and doesn't require an overworked and usually unenthusiastic IT department to set up?

The issue here isn't that they used a spreadsheet, it's that spreadsheets are still treated as toys despite being the exact opposite.

> No one doing anything complex with software is writing their own code anymore

You are not everyone.

The fact you're lazy and do not care about the quality of your code or its future maintainability doesn't not mean anything unless you're reflective of the entire industry. And you aren't.

> The problem is that LLM-generated code has no copyright. Anybody is free to copy it without any limits whatsoever. That does mean that the GPL can potentially go out the window if too much code is LLM-generated or LLM-derived.

It is far too early to make this statement. It is sort of true in the US as a judge or two have ruled something like this, but copyright is a world wide issue, with a patchwork of completely different laws. It may not be protected by copyright in the US, but it might conceivably violate the copyrights of every single person whose works were loaded into the LLM without their consent in Europe, for example.

And honestly, I think that would be right.

That's a question, but an even thornier question is whether LLM code is itself a copyright violation. Europe and the US appear to be moving, slowly, in opposite directions on this, so there's a risk that using LLM code will render your entire project copyrighted by someone else in various jurisdictions if they can show that the LLM you used was built using their code.

For example, CoPilot, IIRC, is trained on the entirety of Github. If someone finds their code on Github, they may co-own your CoPilot-authored project in Europe, at minimum.

But LLMs are designed to use attractive, dopamine maximizing, phrases and workflows, so people use it anyway in the same way they gamble away their kid's college funds at a Las Vegas casino. We're so fucked.

We should but only in parts of the world where car usage isn't mandatory. US suburbs, for example, are not built for or served by anything approaching adequate transit, nor are they even walkable. Those areas not only should not need repeated testing, but you shouldn't even need a license to begin with.

And if you think that's a really terrible idea, well, maybe you need to support more walkable communities with adequate transit, even if you, yourself, wouldn't use any of it.

Also note I'm not proposing not punishing people for making driving errors. Just... suggesting that banning people from driving when that's actually practically a death sentence isn't appropriate. We used to shoot horse thieves because we believed in freedom of movement, and knew the consequences of taking someone's sole form of transportation. Somehow we don't now.

The ease with which a license should be obtained and kept should be proportional to how mandatory driving is.

> And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

Most people were paying around $100 a month for cable. $16-$20 for 5 services is fairly cheap.

I also suspect you think that the alternative to this is one service with all of the content ever made that charges $10 a month. It's actually one service that charges $200 a month and periodically withdraws from distribution half of it like Disney did in the 1990s with VHS tapes.

It's the only way to watch NBC right now short of rabbit ears and some kind of ATSC DVR thing, or worse, a cable subscription, so there's that. If you want to watch SNL (for example) it's the only (streaming) option.

But that kind of content really ought to be free when ad supported.

To be honest, every discussion of streaming these days is "Why do I have to subscribe to 50 different services? Why can't there just be one" (the answer is because if there was just one, it'd cost $200 a month, and there'd be no ad free option.)

So yes, this is what the public is clammering for. The public doesn't actually know what it wants or the consequences of what it wants.

I rather like the current streaming environment. Way cheaper than cable, because no need to subscribe to every TV channel simultaneously. But I think a sizable amount of people think that somehow fewer services = cheaper, which doesn't make any sense.

GitHub has deleted projects because it didn't like them too or considered them too much of a hot potato. Try safely hosting an emulator on there for an older games console or something similar. The only difference is corpo-bias in things to remove vs moral bias.

You can self host if you have real concerns - most people have at least some idea of whether their project is controversial or not. Anyone using LLMs to code right now knows full well that 90% of actual people in computing, as opposed to corporations, have at least some issues with that. And even when it comes to so-called "practical concerns", anyone trying to find projects to use as the basis of their own projects knows that given the different copyright jurisdictions across the world, LLM generated code is a copyright minefield right now. So this shouldn't have come as a surprise, and the discussion was well signposted.

Codeberg's system, Forgejo, is so small it can be hosted on a cheap raspberry PI, a PI3 with a large enough SD card is enough. Obviously if you plan to have thousands of users you might want something bigger, but as a public way to share your code, port forwarding your residential cable Internet service to a Pi is fine.

People should be moving to self hosting anyway. If they don't, I have no sympathy.