You were using the phrase correctly. "They can't compete with it," is the standard way of saying what you intended to say.
I was playing off of the normal meaning of your statement to make a turn of phrase. In other words, I am intentionally using weird phrasing, and placing it next to your normal phrasing for humor and impact.
It says that xAI lost their second cofounder, but then it turns out that he just left the company.
I never worked for Google, so I can't say for sure, but I have this weird suspicion that they use a shitload of open source software, and I'm not just talking about their Android OS or Chromebooks, but for their most core businesses.
It wouldn't be odd to think that Google might not exist except for their being able to use the open-source software that people had made before they founded their company.
The alternative is that they were complete idiots who paid for all sorts of retail software.
Of course Google hates open-source. They can’t compete with it.
Again, it's just my supposition, but I'd bet that they can't compete without it, either.
For any major tech company, apart from ones that are absolutely dedicated to proprietary software starting from firmware up through the OS and on to applications, like Microsoft and Apple, it's going to be deeply hypocritical to hate open-source.
I noticed something similar with video. Like, if I am paying attention, the difference between the highest quality encoding and the next level is usually visible.
However, I have a harder time telling the difference if I don't do a side by side comparison.
And even when I can easily tell the difference, once I'm watching the thing, I get into the story and I don't care anyways.
Obviously a slightly different criteria compared to music, but people do make a big deal out of stuff that even they don't actually care about.
I have wondered the same about scammers. Like, if their mother knew they were going to do that with their life, she'd probably regret all of that wasted effort raising them.
it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc.
It's also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about "obvious" things, and they're completely wrong. Without science studying things, it's "obvious" that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.
I don’t need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health.
Without those studies, you cannot know whether it's bad for your health. You can assume it's bad for your health. You can believe it's bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren't bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.
Ooh, the headline is slightly misleading. It should say, "A desperate nobody who sees his misguided startup failing starts a self-promotion campaign to try to get money from rich people."
Whatever bad shit I want to say about Henry Ford, at least he understood the basic idea that people could only spend the amount of money that they have or make. That's one of the things he's famous for is that his factory workers could buy their own Model Ts.
We now live in a stupid reality where the world is controlled by rich people who see others as slaves and who are wanting to keep slave labor in perpetuity, even when the labor doesn't need to exist.
Assume for a moment that AI really was taking all of these types of jobs, which by the way, almost certainly includes CEOs. It would only be a matter of time before robots take those other jobs he's talking about.
A normal human of normal intelligence would see that and conclude that people simply wouldn't have to work anymore. And that therefore, everyone should have their basic necessities taken care of by their governments.
People would be free to do whatever they want, whether it be "humanities" work or creating things or whatever. We're no longer constrained by the fact that our lives depend on our usefulness in jobs to the ruling class.
Only a member of that ruling class would see themselves as indispensable and others as slave labor.
It's irritating to see him looting the company like that when he actually delivers negative value to the company otherwise. Literally it would be better for Tesla to give those bonuses to some random person on the street than to Musk.
Even if it's not entirely faked, you can instruct an AI to give you wrong answers to your questions. So unless you can see the entire conversation history, you can't make any conclusions about a single response.
I imagine if somebody started a thread here that asked the same question, but said, "Wrong answers only," people would find a lot of evidence that humans aren't capable of figuring this out, either.