I think I used to play Halo 3 with that guy
PumpkinSkink
joined 1 year ago
Are we sure it's cheaper though? I mean it legitimatly might not be. I have some friends who work in tech and they use an AI model for, amongst other things, summarizing information on their internal documentation. They've told me what their company is paying for the license to use this thing, and it's eyewatering. also, uhh last time I checked, the company they got that license from does not turn a profit... so it appears to be too cheap at the moment.
It might really be the case that it isn't cheaper than just paying someone a normal salary to do that work, and it probably isn't cheaper than just jamming the work being done by the AI now back onto preexisting employees (which is what they did before ~2 years ago anyway).
The other thing that makes me feel this might not be unreasonable is that everyone on the team likes the tool, except their manager, who has thrown out the idea to cut it twice now (that I know of).
Yeah, but because our government views technological dominance as a National Security issue we can be sure that this will come to nothing bc China Bad™.
Is he fondling the grunt's junk?
I keep thinking about how Google has implemented it. It sums up my broader feelings pretty well. They jammed this half-baked "AI" product into the very fucking top of their search results. I can't not see it there - its huge and takes up most of my phone's screen after the search, but I always have to scroll down past it because it is wrong, like, pretty often, or misses important details. Even if it sounds right, because I've had it be wrong before I have to just check the other links anyway. All it has succeed at doing in practice is make me scroll down further before I get to my results (not unlike their ads, I might add). Like, if that's "AI" it's no fucking wonder people avoid it.
Noone is saying that. The argument is pretty much that people want more scrutiny applied to other companies beyond tiktok, and ideally not be under constant surveillance by any of them, not that people want to be monitored by all police states equally.
Money is a means of determining the distribution of resources. It doesn't matter if stuff costs less or if people make more money, what matters is that nessecities, at a minimum, are more equitably distributed. You can make that end goal take different forms. Money is a little awkward for that end because you use money to purchase both food and nice cars.
It's a little more complex than that. He, like, was buying shares, blew past the 5% ownership disclosure point, failed to disclose, was forced to disclose his stake. He was then offered a seat on the board, didn't like the lack of control, and made a meme offer on the remaining stake to take the company private, tried to pull out, and was forced to buy the company he didn't want to buy by the board of directors who didn't want him to buy it.
He's the recent Adam Conover interview with the details: https://youtu.be/sxG2Y3E0uEY?si=r0VMY7s3iZ9uaP39