> Modern music has done this to itself. When the human product is already pure corporate slop, it's not hard for AI to compete.
What are you talking about? There’s lots of modern music that’s not corporate slop and that’s absolutely great. Never in history was access to great music as easy as it is now.
So it is stated, but is it actually true? I am not convinced.
Besides, it's not as if they can suddenly stop training models, the moment you do that you've spelled a death sentence for profitablity because Google and open source will very quickly undercut a 15 year break even timeline.
Agreed, the revenues are big.. but very small next to the datacenter bills.. even if a fraction of which are being used for inference, it's hard to argue they even break even. That's before all the other costs (Super Bowl ads, billions in compensation).
Well, the only people with any ability to acknowledge it have a massive incentive to do so, and I've been around the block enough times to know that startups will use every trick in the book to paint a rosy financial picture, even when it's extremely misleading or occasionally just straight up lies. In the current climate of AI hype my skepticism is even greater.
The CEO hyping his product and the viability of his business during an interview with Stripe does not, at least to me, qualify as “widely reported and acknowledged”
from what i understand, the issue with inference is it doesn't scale as user count grows the way traditional saas scales. In typical saas adding users requires very little additional capacity. However with inference, supporting more users requires much more capacity to be added. I don't know if it's quite linear but it certainly requires more infrastructure to support additional LLM users than say a web application.
And the existing infrastructure routinely struggles for several of the well known players. You can literally tell when it's getting bogged down by workload. And that's after all the absurdly large datacenters we've already established at significant expense (to both the corporations and the average person).
This became immediately clear to me over the weekend when I used Opus via API key. I had it review the code for my (relatively small) personal blog to create an AGENTS.MD - it cost me $3.26.
same here... The API costs are absolutely insane for any real usage. This is either high prices to make sure no profitable competitor to claude workspace or other agent system emerges, or heavily sponsoring of their own soluions.
So what? We should act like attractiveness is not a huge privilege because of that? As with other privileges, I think it's important that we are aware of that.
Male beauty is mostly being fit, and being fit leads to better outcomes even without biased teachers. Female beauty doesn't correlate to real world performance in the same way, as women that are a bit thinner than optimal health gets rated as the most beautiful.
Absolutely vital insight, yes.
Male beauty is arduously acquired, which necessarily means it correlates with other virtues such as great work ethic, persistence, not quitting easily, etc.
I’d say that propaganda is much worse and more harmful and it’s not even close. Nowadays like 50% of population believes that covid vaccines are harmful because of bullshit they read on the internet. Prediction market is not even in top 100 harmful things related to internet in my opinion.
This is before the long term studies are even in. I think those who took the vaccine are in for long term health issues. That often happens with medicines haven't been tested.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time, the government can regulate thousands or millions of different types of things at the same time. It doesn’t make sense to say there’s stuff on the Internet that is worse therefore we cannot it should not do anything about it.
> It doesn’t make sense to say there’s stuff on the Internet that is worse therefore we cannot it should not do anything about it.
I don't know where you get that, the discussion is only about the claim that prediction markets are the worst thing on the internet. Multiple things can be bad without being the worst.
I don't know why someone going on a vacation would have moral high ground over someone that HAS TO travel for his work. If you are scientist you absolutely have to fly a lot to visit lots of conferences, disseminate your work, provide lectures etc.
Understand this is both an individual and systemic critique. We have the internet. Much of the travel you describe can and should be done remotely. The top 1% of flyers account for 50% of emissions. I would argue most of that probably is unnecessary technically, but there is both a push and pull factor from people expecting some things to take place face to face.
We're adults, we can keep many things in our minds at one time: We should all reduce flying. Regular working people should not be shamed for taking a holiday and flying there. The most frequent fliers for work should make a personal effort to reduce their flying. And companies, conferences, etc. should work much harder to facilitate remote participation and reduce stigma around it, as well as encouraging other modes of travel. Governments should improve alternative solutions such as rail and high-speed rail.
reply