You know, I used to worry about China taking over the world, but honestly they look like a much better choice for a super power than the US is now.

I for one welcome our new communist overlords.

Why should not I?

Is this one of those subs where pedo rape jokes are funny or one of the ones where pedo rape jokes are discouraged?

Yeah, still not convinced.

I work in a field which is not dissimilar. Teaching customers to email you their requirements so your LLM can have a go at filling out the form just seems ludicrous to me.

Additionally, the models you’re using require stupid amounts of power to produce so that you can run them on low power machines.

Anyhow, neither of us is going to change our minds without actual data which neither of us have. Who knows, a decade from now I might be forwarding client emails to an LLM so it can fill out a form for me, at which time I’ll know I was wrong.

If I’m brutally honest, I don’t find these use cases very compelling.

Separate fields for addresses could be easily solved without an LLM. The only reason there isn’t already a common solution is that it just isn’t that much of a problem.

Data ingestion from email will never be as efficient and accurate as simply having a customer fill out a form directly.

These things might make someone mildly more efficient at their job, but given the resources required for LLMs is it really worth it?

I suspect that this is “grumpy old man” type thinking, but my concern is the loss of fundamental skills.

As an example, like many other people I’ve spent the last few decades developing written communication skills, emailing clients regarding complex topics. Communication requires not only an understanding of the subject, but an understanding of the recipient’s circumstances, and the likelihood of the thoughts and actions that may arise as a result.

Over the last year or so I’ve noticed my assistants using LLMs to draft emails with deleterious results. This use in many cases reduces my thinking feeling experienced and trained assistant to an automaton regurgitating words from publicly available references. The usual response to this concern is that my assistants are using the tool incorrectly, which is certainly the case, but my argument is that the use of the tool precludes the expenditure of the requisite time and effort to really learn.

Perhaps this is a kind of circular argument, like why do kids need to learn handwriting when nothing needs to be handwritten.

It does seem as though we’re on a trajectory towards stupider professional services though, where my bot emails your bot who replies and after n iterations maybe they’ve figured it out.

I think there’s specific industrial problems for which AI is indeed transformative.

Just one example that I’m aware of is the AI-accelerated nazca lines survey that revealed many more geoglyphs that we were not previously aware of.

However, this type of use case just isn’t relevant to most people who’s reliance on LLMs is “write an email to a client saying xyz” or “summarise this email that someone sent to me”.

I think you missed the joke.

You’re not just “disagreeing”. You’re trotting out GOP propaganda, much like a bot programmed to do so.

I’m having a hard time believing that you actually believe what you’re saying.

Imagine what some places would be like if you could sleep in your car.

While the pilot works for the harbor, they are acting as a part of the crew when on ship.

Yeah I remember reading about this during the ever given thing. If the pilot fucks up the ship’s owner is still first cock on the block.

I interpreted “power” as “propulsion”

Like on star trek. Love it.

They’re not even great toys though.

Interesting.

This formula means, generally speaking, that the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for the negligence of the master or crew, but not for his own personal negligence or that of his managerial personnel.

Does this mean, if the captain fucks up their liability is limited, but if the accident is caused due to systematic poor maintenance maybe not?

Removed by mod

You’re right that they don’t give a fuck, but I don’t think the reasoning really runs that deep.

If you have an election, no matter how corrupt or coerced, then any assertion that you’re an autocratic dictator is an “opinion” requiring evidence to support it.

This way, it says democracy on the tin, so everyone will behave as though it is that, despite no one buying it.

Did you not bother to read the 3rd and 4th sentence of my comment?

The question is open ended. It’s subjective, dependent on the definition of “die”. It’s not answerable with merely yes or no.

Dude. The 4th sentence of the page you linked says it doesn’t apply to this type of open ended question.

The only possible answer to this (admittedly silly) headline is, “it depends what you mean by die”. An answer yes or no could easily be rebutted.

Really interesting. Thanks for this.

I knew nothing about him 5 minutes ago.

this is pure speculation.

Of course it is.

That said, do you think it’s unrealistic to suppose that marketing might improve revenue? I do not.

Firstly, that’s not a scaling problem, you’re talking about poor uptake.

Secondly, the reason so few users donate to open source projects is because these projects are so poorly marketed to potential supporters. That’s why a sophisticated organisation like Mozilla is so well placed to sell the stories behind some of these projects.

Thirdly, the percentage of users that click on ads and shopping is also very low. Particularly amongst more technical users.

Fourthly, this plan would actually drive users to Firefox. If Firefox is promoting donations for say, LibreOffice, then they would naturally have an interest in promoting Firefox.

With the advent of enshittification, free-as-in-beer tech is dead. I think people are realising that things need to be paid for. It’s very defeatist to just say “no one contributes to open source”. Why not try to find the format within which people might contribute?