If you ever want to grow capability of technical contributions, you are welcome but not necessary.
I would much prefer someone that accepts their level of contribution than one who thinks “Claude can make me a valuable contributor even if I have no idea how to”.
I want to agree, but have to acknowledge that, realistically, they won’t even know all the things that need to be addressed before the huge userbase starts poking it.
Back in the day games were limited and the gameplay was generally fairly constrained, making fairly comprehensive QA at least plausible. Now things are so open ended there’s no way a company hits all of that.
Though I’m not sure every game needs to be that open ended…
I went to look it up, evidently it was the Commodore 64.
But judging from the context, they wouldn’t have even bothered. They knew and made a change to just force an unsatisfying game over. They had ample opportunity to fix it even after release (logistics easier than NES roms), but didn’t bother.
No, saying that folks who get going with AI can get into a feedback loop. Wow, this seems like a person except it likes every idea I have and never ever challenges me. Then they recalibrate to a more lower friction world.
Already happens in online communities where folks tend to get ban-happy over anything that doesn’t perfectly fit a community’s vibe. People got a bit more insufferable when they could find the most like-minded communities to endlessly reinforce their own views. AI takes it a step further by always being able to be that like-minded peer, no matter what your views are.
It’s even worse if people get hit with this a lot during their formative years, but people stay a bit malleable after growing up. Certainly some upbringings bring you closer to going all in on AI flattery than others and having a further “starting point” makes things more likely and faster, but even fairly reasonable people can go a bit nuts.
You also see it with power and wealth. I’ve known folks that at least seemed fairly grounded with a healthy relationship with being wrong or losing turn into quite unlikeable, self-centered folks after having a bit of success and excessive external validation from sycophants.
Well I try to be easy to talk to, but I’m not going to be “What a clever idea” to everything brought up to me no matter what, so I won’t be as “nice” as a GenAI chatbot ever.
Of course that’s true, the issue is that when folks are surrounded by “yes men” (or AI equivalents), they lose perspective and suddenly a lack of flattery is enough to be in the “douchebag” category. Some reasonable social friction is important to keep people from going way off the rails.
One problem is AI interactions moving the goalposts of what folks may perceive as ‘douchebag’.
An AI providing sycophantic reinforcement at max makes someone being vaguely skeptical of you feel, by comparison, like they are being a ‘douchebag’.
Sometimes, it’s best if people in your life aren’t always acting in a way that seems supportive and positive in the moment. For example if you are having a paranoid delusion, you need a reality check rather than what feels like external validation.
Talking to yourself keeps the perspective hopefully grounded, you know who you are talking to and how full of shit they can be. The magic of AI seems to peel that grounded perspective away for some folks.
The pronouns are vague, but I think they are claiming that an AI user sincerely believes that some manifested thing on an AI platform loves the user. That the LLM+Context Window = An entity capable of love.
I’m more worried about such a person than holding stuff against them.
Treating a chat bot like an acquaintance leads to some poor mental health outcomes.
Yeah, had a car dealer try to say “the price doesn’t even matter, only the monthly payment matters, right?”
The problem for those of us who know better: this reasoning works on most of the customers and it’s more profitable to do that than cater to more savvy customers.
Given how long that would take, I’d guess that we will see OpenAI backing out of some of their purchasing commitments as a price pressure before then.
Sam Altman basically single handedly committed to buying almost half of the world’s RAM capacity, and on other fronts OpenAI has already backing out of some of its more egregiously stupid business decisions. I’m sure the purchasing commitments are only a matter of time to come up on that chopping block.
Yeah, I was in a room with a customer that said point blank “even if it costs us more in opex within a year than buying it as capex, we would rather rent the stuff as opex”
Some accounting bullshit makes them hate having anything that they must count as an “asset” that goes down in value over time. Better to burn the money as “expense” than to have to manage the value burning off over years as “depreciation”.
Heh, to some extent I think the hardware vendors have done this to themselves.
They try to balance “good TCO if you just buy it” but simultaneously say “but it sucks to own the equipment you need to pay us exorbitant services fees to make it easier to own”.
Nothing unique to IT, certainly car manufacturers love to first sell you on how robust the car is and then try to scare you into thinking it’ll turn to dust if you don’t buy extended warranties…
Not the beginning, ‘Device as a Service’ has been the buzzword as of late, but basically has been a thing for decades. I remember twenty years ago scratching my head at why the company I worked at paid more to lease desktops for three years than it would have cost to just buy them outright, or even finance them.
Suffice to say in reality there would be context to indicate who in that partnership would be the unreasonable one. As presented, no way to know if he gamed once in a while and she is annoyed because she is disdainful of the activity, or if he is marathon gaming and never engaging with her.
The image includes a subsequent “what have you done?” which even if you believed everything else, would not have happened.
Yes, but even assuming the origin number was real (it almost certainly isn’t), they spammed countless others. If they got counter spammed, they’d have no inking which victim caused it to happen. Unless the person told them, which according to the picture didn’t happen. Or they told the Craigslist people his own real number to let the spammer know who sent them, which seems like an even worse idea.
It is a fake story.
The existing network will be gone within a few years. By design. If all goes well for SpaceX, it will have been replaced by a new network, which will also be gone within a few years.
Just pointing out that the existing network can’t be relied upon without continued re-investment constantly. It’s hard to build up a strong first mover advantage when the fruits of the effort burn up in the atmosphere routinely.
Even if they did believe in the possibilities, they are likely eager to offload in favor of a more diversified investment strategy.
Most folks I know that even think their company is in decent enough shape sell off RSUs quick as they can because they broadly don’t trust having a bunch in a single company stock. Especially if that stock collapsing would likely correlate with them losing their paycheck too.
Hey, it’s no stupid questions. Only smart questions allowed.