ahsillyme

Sonnet 5 is probably better than Opus 4.8 in many cases -- you may want to try it; I now use only Fable and Sonnet unless the task is explicitly one where Opus can't de-scope and be lazy (e.g. replicating exactly a system as a coarse model to be used for refactoring-and-lowering, (model system in Idris) is the last thing I used Opus for because it had no choice but to stay on scope).

Since this will not be able to be used for coding or code auditing, what use is it? Not being glib, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to stretch my creativity, and I can't see what it's for.

I thought that there was a name clash: https://web.archive.org/web/20071010015641/https://martin.an... but I can't actually remember what that that wterm was. Not the same I would imagine. (edit: what I was thinking about was https://sourceforge.net/projects/wterm/)

I read that as implied.

I think it betrays cynicism about the tendency for single-objective optimizing market actors to rent-seek and cartelize. I don't think it's a stretch at all. On the surface it would be equally preposterous to suggest that breathing could be theoretically revoked by the government, which truly is preposterous but we do have those laws in place depending on whether the air you breathe has "illegal substances" in it. But then again, explicit revocation is a high bar when you can throttle the free use of computational resources by regulatory capture: the AI incumbents could say, for example, that AI is so dangerous that it must be kept out of the hands of the unwashed masses. Another excellent strategy (with a rather high bar to entry) would be to distort the markets themselves by ensuring that your prospective renters can't afford basic compute.

Interesting. It's the only commercial distro I could ever stomach, in fact I really like it but don't use it, (because there's a non-commercial distro that I like much more). (Edit: my point was that it would feel like a real loss if it were to deteriorate)

Alright, it was my assumption that we'll be left with a totally dysfunctional economy, and in that sense whatever's in you bank account means very little. If I were an oil exec I wouldn't trade that world from what we had before even if money was my only objective.

I don't think any reasonable person would think this decision works to fill the coffers of anybody. Everyone is getting shafted.

What's in the autocorrect dictionary usually has nothing to do with what you typically write. No reason to wonder (i.e. if the insinuation being that that's a word they'd typically use).

"Personal Computing" is going to become a luxury of the past, and we’ll all be terminal-renters in someone else's data center.

Yep. My take is that, ironically, it's going to be because of government funding the circular tech economy, pushing consumers out of the tech space.

More or less. Unless it's something to do with the employee's privacy or something to that effect. Doesn't mean the criminals are the good guys here, since they're trying to make bank on it instead of releasing it to the public -- if it's something that the public has an interest in.

I wouldn't be so sure of that assertion regarding attention span. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance granted, it's about opinion rather than capability but the same bias would explain such a reflexive judgment, and such a judgment will have negative consequences if it is false. (Consensus can be shaped, as can the perception of consensus be.)

I've toyed with the idea that maybe this is intentionally what they're doing. Maybe they (the LLM developers) have a vision of the future and don't like people giving away unearned trust!

Is this something that you would have done? I don't see how russia's survivability would be improved by expanding it's sphere of control, but, on the contrary it would stretch resources thin.