r00ty

Base pay $25,000
Performance related bonus per quarter:
0 issues found: $25,000
1+ issues found: $0

It's capitalism. You get to choose who steals your personal data.

How does the game industry deal with this? Pretty sure the auto industry will go the same route.

Yeah there will be a game of cat and mouse with the die hards. Most will just roll with it when it gets too hard.

It's OK. I crossed it out with a marker on the screen before clicking agree.

The other side of that coin is, if we all read the bullshit extended legalise in every licence/privacy agreement for everything we've ever used, we'd never do anything else but read them.

Besides which, it's not like there's a choice aside from accepting the agreement or not using the thing. Alternatives? All have similar agreements attached.

Basically, this is just a symptom of how much "better" modern life is. But hey, at least we don't need to worry about lions eating us quite so much.

Cars have had engine management since the 90s too. I remember my Ford (UK) from 1998 had engine management (including the key based transponder to immobilise the ECU). My current car is around 9 years old and doesn't have any internet connectivity. So, there's a pretty wide range to work with.

But, yeah eventually the cars that don't invade your privacy will become not economically viable to keep running in most cases.

But really, it won't matter in this case. Once more than half the cars on the road are reporting you to big brother insurance co, the insurers will just add a surcharge for vehicles that don't report data on you.

Not to mention all the other increasing routes for personal data to be extracted and sold.

OVH server owners learned their lesson not to keep their backups on the same hosting provider after the fire a few years ago. The only problem I had was actually getting OVH to give me a new server to restore my off-site backup to!

If you have backups independently of your hosting provider AND your domain isn't hosted with them. The worst they can do is take you down for the time it takes to get a new server elsewhere, restore your data and point your DNS (or CDN endpoint) to your new home.

If you're running a fediverse server and at the bare minimum don't have your database backed up somewhere, then the fault of any takedown is as much your fault as your hosting provider.

Mine is first backed up nightly to a server on another hosting provider, and that in turn is backed up to encrypted cloud backup.

Here's the thing. There are still plenty of devices that only have 2.4Ghz radios. There's some cheaper stuff still made today with just 2.4Ghz. So you'd just cut out a load of devices from working straight out. This kind of thing needs to be done slowly. 3G was very different because phone makers generally always want the more modern technology and phones that didn't have radios capable of 4g or better really are just rare now.

But, there's also just no reason to. Have 2.4Ghz available doesn't hurt you, if you're not using it. Any chipset with 5Ghz is not costing more to also support 2.4. They're just all pretty much single chip solutions these days and the aerial is usually just a coil on the board somewhere. If your device works on 5Ghz it will use 5Ghz.

I'd also argue in real terms 5Ghz isn't much better than 2.4Ghz in terms of channel space in places that need to respect DFS rules you generally only get one 80Mhz channel that will definitely work, and if you're using 802.11ax 80Mhz is really the minimum you want to get even remotely close to the advertised rate. Everything else useful is either DFS or limited power (at least here in the UK, and I don't recall seeing the limited power channel as an option). Now, I've generally setup two wifi APs in my house, one on the only non DFS channel, and the other on a DFS channel. That way if the DFS channel gets knocked out there's a fallback to the already congested "main" 5Ghz channel.

I think the main point is, why remove something that doesn't really affect you but may well affect others?

Why would we plan for something if we have no idea what the time horizon is? It’s like saying “we may have a Mars colony in the next generation, so we don’t need to teach kids geography”

Well, I think this is the point being made quite a bit in this thread. It's general business level hyperbole, really. Just to get a headline and attention (and it seems to have worked). No-one really knows at which point all of our jobs will be taken over.

My point is that in general, the current AI models and diffusion techniques are moving forward at quite the rate. But, I did specify that AGI would be a sidestep out of the current rail. I think that there's now weight (and money) behind AI and pushing forward AGI research. Things moving faster in one lane right now can push investment into other lanes and areas of research. AI is the buzzword every company wants a piece of.

I'm not as confident as Mr Nvidia is, but with this kind of money behind it, AGI does have a shot of happening.

In terms of advice regarding training for software development, though. What I think for sure is that the current LLMs and offshoots of the techniques will develop, better frameworks for businesses to train them on their own material will become commonplace, I think one of the biggest consultancy growth areas will be in producing private models for software (and other) companies.

The net effect of that is going to mean they will just want fewer (better) engineers to make use of the AI to produce more, with less people. So, even without AGI the demand for software developers and engineers is going to be lower I think. So, is it as favourable an industry to train for now as it was for the previous generations? Quite possibly it's not.

I'd tend to agree. I said we may have that, and then he might have a point. But, if we don't, he'll be wrong because current LLMs aren't going to (I think at least) get past the limitations and cannot create anything close to original content if left to feed on their own output.

I don't think it's easy to say what will be the situation in 15-20 years. The current generation of AI is moving ridiculously fast. Can we sidestep to AGI? I don't know the answer, probably people doing more work in this area have a better idea. I just know on this subject it's best not to write anything off.

I don't. We're talking about the next generation of people here. Do pay attention at the back.

Well, he's put the writing on the wall for his own developers. So, even if it isn't AI that writes them, the quality may well go down when those that can easily do so, leave for pastures new :P