I would love someone to play devil's advocate against this perspective:
While these tools stand to enable the democratization of productive capability in software engineering and other tasks (creating a renaissance for solopreneurs, let's say), what seems more likely to actually happen is that entrenched capital will become the only player with real access to this "knowledge as a utility" (was it Altman who called it that?).
We already see this playing out in two fronts: 1) the gradual reduction of services and 2) the DRAM market, where local-first tools (i.e., potential disruptors of the emerging "knowledge monopoly" created by the big AI firms) are being stifled by supply shortages. How many promising small-to-medium-sized competitors are being snuffed out of existence (or never starting) due to the insanity of the DRAM/storage/CPU (soon) markets?
The currently-subsidized access that we have to the big Opus-like models will, in parallel, be gradually be taken away until only the big players can afford it. And in the end what we will have is hyper-productive skeleton crews at a few consolidated firms performing (or selling expensive access to) basically all of the knowledge labor for society, with very little potential for disruption due to the hardware and "knowledge" scarcity engineered (in part, maybe) by this monopoly.
Not necessarily a closely held belief – just a hunch – which is why I want to see what parts of the picture I might be missing.
In periods of massive inflation, only the most wealthy survive.
But there's competition out there -- the open-source chinese models. In their current form, I assume that will turn off many people but new models -- based on those -- are likely to appear. Also, OAI and Google will release new models and pick up the lost customers.
Devils advocate here - pro and max tier customers for all the major inference providers are loss leaders from the data we have been able to figure out, and reverse engineer. They are effectively a marketing exercise.
The real profitability is selling tokens to enterprise, and enterprise demand is growing so fast that they are short on the total amount of tokens they can generate per minute, and are prioritising rationally - enterprise gets a better experience - instead of optimizing for their lowest paying (and most loss leading) customers.
We are in a hardware crunch right now but that won't be forever, and eventually (likely 2028) we will get experiences like we got in January from pro-sumer accounts again.
Not only because of cost. Mythos has only been released to some of the big tech players because it's "too dangerous" [0] for us little people.
It's easy to see this becoming a permanent position; the latest models and smarts are reserved for establishment members only, the riff-raff get the cast-offs. So the establishment is preserved and the status quo protected.
[0] I'm putting scare/irony quotes around this, but if the reporting is accurate, there is something to this; we built the internet on string and duct tape, it's not hard to see how a very smart AI could cut it to ribbons.
Extremely bad stuff here. Can't believe it's been 7 hours now and you can still pull up people's complete prepared tax returns right from a Google search. This should be a business-ending breach of trust and good practices, but I worry there's probably a lack of regulatory might or will to make anything happen.
> “Fiverr does not proactively expose users’ private information. The content in question was shared by users in the normal course of marketplace activity to showcase work samples, under agreements and approvals between buyers and sellers. This type of content requires the buyer’s explicit consent before it can be uploaded. As always, any request to remove content is handled promptly by our team."
It sounds like they are trying to claim the users involved published the links and that's why they are on Google? But how could anyone believe that multiple users intentionally published their SSN?
Re the takedown, I'm also guessing it's from Cloudinary. Maybe HTTP Referrer based?
The DMCA takedown also suggests at least one user was not aware of that file being public. This all comes down to what that "sharing" action specifically looked like.
ChatGPT recently had a similar case with the sharing feature on conversations leading to publicly indexed convos. That incident would have also matched the implied definition of sharing here.
It's very unfortunate but a significant amount of the most damaging stuff in this is from the underprivileged and those with minimal means who were trying to find help they could afford. Non-profits trying to get website help, confidential reports for charities trying to get translations, children seeking therapy (fiverr has a therapy category!?) for some truly dark stuff.
Utterly inexcusable that this is still up after so many hours.
> My Echo, that I use solely to voice activating lights and switches, is now an ad machine
I've been wondering if it is even possible for a publicly-traded company to deliver a voice assistant product without these incentives involved. I have to imagine the UX of these devices would be much different if they were built by a private company without the same market pressures. It would need to be self-contained and local, so that the infrastructure burden (e.g., data and AI in the cloud) wouldn't create a need for subscription service or data collection revenue to cover the cost.
This is why devices that are basically loss leaders should always be illegal. The end value product is an update that will come later down the line that screws everything up.
For those considering smart home devices, please just buy a home assistant device. It is easy for the non-technical and also not that much more expensive
Matter/Thread is reasonably good with Apple Home. The more adventurous can also dual-join it to Home Assistant running on the same Thread network. It surprisingly just works, though the dual-controller setup still involves a little initial suffering.
I am using Matter/Thread with Home Assistant and the new ZBT-2. No Apple Home integration! Although I will say that homekit with the Home Assistant bridge is very good! Kudos to Apple
> I've been wondering if it is even possible for a publicly-traded company to deliver a voice assistant product without these incentives involved. I have to imagine the UX of these devices would be much different if they were built by a private company without the same market pressures.
Apple's HomePods have never had ads and don't require a subscription/data collection to control home devices.
Some of that is probably because students at elite universities come from families who understand exactly how to navigate meritocratic systems. Parents who know you need a tutor to ace the ACT and an essay editor to polish your application essays likely also understand that, in some situations, you should get a psychiatric evaluation and disclose any diagnoses so you can receive accommodations.
I'm fairly convinced a big part of clearing the barrier to entry of these elite institutions is having a deep understanding of exactly the things you need to do to succeed given the structure of the system and the nature of the competition. Students at "non-elite" institutions are more likely to come from backgrounds where even if you DO have a disability, maybe nobody ever tells you that you can go to the doctor for it, or that something like "accommodations" exist to help you.
While getting help for a legitimate disability is worthwhile and also something more likely to happen in a wealthy family, that is most certainly not what is happening here. These people game the system, get prescriptions for Adderall whether they need it or not, and get extra time on everything. I saw it a little bit when I was at a "non-elite" university. Dealing with "elite" alumni confirms this outlook too.
It costs money to have a disability: doctors, special schools maybe, time off work. If one can downplay or avoid dealing with one, poorer families will, even if not fully openly or consciously. Even in college, if you have a part time job and a full course load, how much time do you have to sniff around the ombudsman's office filling out forms?
The LLM is not the slot machine. The LLM is the lever of the slot machine, and the slot machine itself is capitalism. Pull the lever, see if it generates a marketable product or moment of virality, get rich if you hit the jackpot. If not, pull again.
I don't know why you were downvoted. This is the FOMO that encourages agent gambling, automated experimentation in the hopes of accidentally striking digital gold before your peers do. A million monkeys racing 24/7 to create the next Harry Potter first.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, now proofs of concept are a load of tokens a dozen.
> I ask it to reflect on why, and update the Skill to clarify, adding or removing detail as necessary.
We are probably undervaluing the human part of the feedback loop in this discussion. Claude is able to solve the problem given the appropriate human feedback — many then jump to the conclusion that well, if Claude is capable of doing it under some circumstances, we just need to figure out how to remove the human part so that Claude can eventually figure it out itself.
Humans are still serving a very crucial role in disambiguation, and in centering the most salient information. We do this based on our situational context, which comes from hands-on knowledge of the problem space. I'm hesitant to assume that because Claude CAN bootstrap skills (which is damn impressive!), it would somehow eventually do so entirely on its own, devoid of any situational context beyond a natural language spec.
Absolutely. This is why I'm hesitant to go full "dark software factory" and try to build agent loops that iterate in YOLO mode without my input. I spent a day last week iterating Skills on a project by giving it the same high-level task and then pausing it when it went off the rails, self-reflect, and update its Skill. It almost took me out of the loop, but I still had to be there to clear up some misunderstandings and apply some common sense and judgment.
US incarceration rates increased 500% in the decades following the enactment of war on drugs legislation, starting with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
More speculatively, I think the prison system has also taken over the role of the mental health institutions that were wound down under Reagan. Over half of the incarcerated population has a mental health condition, and likely are not receiving adequate mental health care while incarcerated.
You actually seem to have a compelling case here. I am seeing something like 20% of the combined state and federal prison population is in for drug offenses, but that raises some more questions. I could certainly believe that a lot of that is simple possession and the US is uniquely terrible in that regard, but certainly other countries must handle drug dealers as well. And it's hard to break out drug offenses into more detail. Are we talking kilograms of possession? Distributing drugs? (of course, some laws claim that possession, say, 10 grams implies intent to distribute which complicates things).
And even outside of drugs, while 20% of our prison population does account for a large chunk of the us's exceptional nature, it would still leave us #1 by a large margin if it didn't exist. Although Wikipedia does talk about another part of this is due to the _length_ of the US sentences, and how they are much longer on average then other countries, so that also contributes significantly.
Dishonesty layered on dishonesty, marketed with an arrogant smirk on top. I feel like tech culture has fully internalized the ethos of "no attention is bad attention", so having a lack of scruples and a talent for rage baiting is now seen as an advantage. It might pay off well for some people in the short term, but it's not a sustainable way to run a society.
What a beautiful and charming project. Kudos for taking it all the way from zero to one with such a polished design. That's no small feat. I've built prototypes for eurorack and even with some simplifying constraints it's a lot of work.
While these tools stand to enable the democratization of productive capability in software engineering and other tasks (creating a renaissance for solopreneurs, let's say), what seems more likely to actually happen is that entrenched capital will become the only player with real access to this "knowledge as a utility" (was it Altman who called it that?).
We already see this playing out in two fronts: 1) the gradual reduction of services and 2) the DRAM market, where local-first tools (i.e., potential disruptors of the emerging "knowledge monopoly" created by the big AI firms) are being stifled by supply shortages. How many promising small-to-medium-sized competitors are being snuffed out of existence (or never starting) due to the insanity of the DRAM/storage/CPU (soon) markets?
The currently-subsidized access that we have to the big Opus-like models will, in parallel, be gradually be taken away until only the big players can afford it. And in the end what we will have is hyper-productive skeleton crews at a few consolidated firms performing (or selling expensive access to) basically all of the knowledge labor for society, with very little potential for disruption due to the hardware and "knowledge" scarcity engineered (in part, maybe) by this monopoly.
Not necessarily a closely held belief – just a hunch – which is why I want to see what parts of the picture I might be missing.
reply