That sounds very much like must online leftists. Every single thing that improves the world slightly is pushed against, simply because it doesn’t solve every problem.
Of course, none of these people do anything for the Revolution they love so much. They’re evangelical at this point. Where the Revolution is the second coming, requiring no actual work, just believing in it.
What traditional tool can run an automated code review on every PR? Maybe even fix (or propose fixes) for the obvious issues?
A very large chunk of the improvements in the last year have come not from categorically better models, but from the circumstances of the models massively improving. For example, reasoning is just automatic prompt engineering, and eats a fuckton of tokens. Harnesses give LLMs tools, making it easier to turn nondeterminism into determinism (does this code compile is a decision the compiler can answer definitely). Then there’s subagents, which is just automatic context engineering.
Basically, the price per token might not have changed, but in practice, the amount of tokens used to get “SOTA” performance has massively increased.
I understand hating AI for it’s negative effects on the world.
What I don’t understand is people pretending that it isn’t generally speaking much better than manual search for most general knowledge queries.
If we count all the ads, all the SEO optimised spam, the hiding the one sentence of substance in a page long article, or the automatic summary of multiple sources, I don’t see how it isn’t (generally) better.
Sure, if you’re doing actual scientific research, don’t use AI. But everyday queries that 99% of people would do are (sadly) better served by AI.
I’m not saying that that’s good, just that it’s true. It’s weird to pretend reality doesn’t exist, just because it might involve giving AI credit for anything.
I can only think of maybe a small handful of positive instances of “porn in nonporn”. For example, Bayonetta as a character is very much aware of her sexiness, and approves of flaunting it. Compare that to something like Stellar Blade, where the Eve is just “accidentally” super hot, with zero self awareness.
I agree, is what I’m saying.
Listen, as long as I can find fault in any attempt at making the world slightly less shitty, I can avoid having to take any responsibility for my part in all of this.
It’s not just profitable, it also requires most people in the west (probably 99% of people here) to realize there understanding of what a “basic level of quality of life” is is completely scewed by our immense privilege. Globally speaking, we are all part of the top 10% destroying the planet the most. From memory, a single american going vegan can make up for a families worth of emissions in a poorer country.
There’s no amount of rich people we can eat or corporations we can destroy that will allow us to just live like we are at the moment. Nowhere close.
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
The actual price is hard to really know, but I think training should also factor in. The hype of LLMs is based on the fantastical idea of continunous improvement forever, so you need to keep training. Even ignoring the hype part, you still need to retrain simply to update the data inside the LLM.
I guess we’ll only know for sure after the crash/readjustment.
From my memory of their financials, they actually get enough donations for the browser. The issue is the for profit companies fetish for a million different side quests.
Never ever have I seen it used in that manner. It’s always used as a thought terminating cliche suggesting that any comparison requires two things to be equal.