But it costs 100x as much, if not more. Running an LLM can be done on a notebook these days. But training one requires an entire data center of expensive GPUs. Not to mention that the notebook will run a reduced (quantized) version. Go check huggingface how large the full models are.

And also, LLMs are still suffering from a number of issues. For example, on many non-trivial tasks, the LLM is still unable to follow simple instructions. If you use LLMs routinely, you likely found cases where it has zeroed in on one - wrong - answer and no amount of prompting can convince it to give you a different one. It'll even totally ignore very clear and explicit prompts to not give that same answer again.

A human will understand "if you give that answer again, you're fired". An LLM... well you can tell it that it'll get shot between the eyes if it repeats that once more and it'll tell you where to get help if you have suicidal thoughts.

These things are both amazing and amazingly dumb at the same time.

I'm an indie game developer. My games have budgets of a few hundred bucks at best. Before AI, voice acting was simply impossible. There was no way I could pay a voice actor for even one language.

Now, with AI, I can have voice-overs in half a dozen languages easily. It has opened up something for me that was never possible before.

Yes, the AI voices are mediocre. Yes, I would prefer having an actual voice actor whom I can tell that I want THAT word stressed, or what emotion to convey. I'm sure in a few more years, the text-to-speech AI generators will allow for that as well.

But I'm not lost business. I'm still hiring the exact same number of voice actors that I did before AI. Zero, in my case. But if I had a budget, I'd still hire voice actors instead of AI because a good voice actor still beats the best AI.

There's still time enough to learn something new and get a different job, guys.

Which is still often set as a 'kids' setting (no comments, no playlists). So will it decide that I'm 10 years old, or will it realize I'm in my 50s and just waxing nostalgic at a show's better days...

Everyone I know who makes my equivalent AGI, except for my household, has 1+ dogs, work crazy hours, and have been told that their dogs are lonely and depressed.

Not one or two people.

EVERYONE. Dozens upon dozens of my clients, colleagues, peers, friends from grade school, etc, have a dog or two, and then they have to have someone come spend time with said dog when they're putting 10+ hours away from them.

Wag/Rover/etc is part of their crazy consumer spending. I always am shocked to hear they're spending $1000 a month on their pets.

Americans are insane about their pets. Instead of buying a dog, I invest in corporate veterinary hospitals, because it's crazy profitable.

It's only a logical step for Windos to evolve from a successful malware delivery platform to an actual malware. Fits to MS typical business strategy - if someone else is commercially successful on their platform, they'll drive them out with a built-in product.

I hope the anti-trust agency will stop them and demand that the malware division and the OS division become distinct legal entities. I mean, they already have the anti-competitive advantage that you can pay them in USD and don't have to buy bitcoins.

I mean, yeah, no burnout is good. Employee health is good.

but at the same time, 'productivity' does still matter. are they getting the same amount of work done in 32 hours that they used to get done in 40? If not, then this is a bad comparison because yeah, everybody does better if nobody works as much...except the company.

somewhere there's a balance. labor found it at 40 hours and 5 days (2 days off) decades ago. if that's not the right value, fine...but just giving employees the time off without giving the corporations something of at least equal value (they aren't going to value the cost of rehiring others after burnout kicks in, and anybody who denies that is an idiot). If the balance needs to shift, both sides need to see the advantage of the shift, or it will never happen on scale.

Thanks, those are very interesting links with solid information.

There is no right to privacy.

There is no right to your image.

Government can TRY to make those rights, but the freedom of expression is superior to the idea that you can stop me from hand drawing your image when you're at the beach.

According to the article, the hit rate of drones isn't all that amazing, either.

Artillery pretty much works by saturating the area with explosions until some of them hit something. So a low hit rate is expected. Maybe a decade after the war ends we'll get some actual numbers to compare to other theaters.

That is correct, though it doesn't seem to have affected the course of the war noticeably.

Source?

That's a bold claim.

The article I linked to speaks about that. Essentially: Yes. But: Not the cheap stuff used, and stuff like fiber optics come with their own drawbacks.

The article I linked to includes prices.

Meanwhile, some reports from the frontlines indicate that while drones are ubiquituous, they aren't the game-changer the tech-industry wants them to be.

tl;dr essential bits: a) most drone strikes could have been done by other, cheaper weapons. b) drones are an unreliable weapon due to jamming, dependency on weather and light and many technical failures.

I love that the advertisement I'm seeing on this page right now is for a browser extension (from Microsoft)

This is statism, writ large.

You get paid for work you PERFORM, but not work you RECORD. Copyright is anti-individual rights and liberties.

I'll be glad when Ai truly replaces all of these artists.

JSON is an improvement over XML and easier to transmit than YAML.