infinitezest

Is heroin the same as beer? Who even knows.

Based on what we _do_ know, I have serious doubts that this admin could keep a secret if they wanted to.

People with access to enormous wealth tend to get a lot of chances at the betting table.

Are these sources not incentivized to say exactly this, regardless of whether it's true?

If you work in this industry? Not really.

Aren't there laws against selling tobacco to minors? And advertising to them? Your analogy is supporting the opposite conclusion.

"You sound defensive"

What an incredibly creative retelling of history

And they can't hear you from under the enormous pile of debt they're fighting to overcome. Maybe try again in 2028.

A lot of manufacturers are bailing on consumer lines to focus on enterprise from what I've read. Not great.

When you let the cat out of the box yourself...

I could say the same thing to you. Go back a few more years to his first term, to his campaign. He is absolutely the main architect of the chaos that has ensued. You don't get to start fights and then get mad when people fight back. The selective outrage you're demonstrating here is baffling.

Maybe that was also bad. And maybe the current admin is still more brazen, less accountable, more selfish and more vindictive. Why even bring this up? Should we not care about this because other people did bad stuff?

Based on what logic?

The question I keep asking myself is "how feasible will any of this be when the VC money runs out?" Right now tokens are crazy cheap. Will the continue to be?

A CV for the disappearing job market as you shovel money into a oligarchy.

I mean, I certainly hope you're right. But it's really hard for a dummy like me to tell how much of this hype is real. There seems to be more money bet on this thing than anything prior. It seems like there's no good outcome here, whether the tech works or not.

This is something I've been waiting to hear as well. We hear about how jobs will be eliminated, and occasionally we hear about how that means there will be time for other things that we want to do, but it kind of seems like AI is already doing all of the things that we want to do. And then, of course, there's the question of how the rest of us are going to provide for ourselves if none of us have jobs. Those at the top already seem quite reticent to share with the rest of us. I can't imagine that's going to get better if we don't provide any value to them that a computer can't do for cheaper.

What specifically are you referring to here?

It must be nice to live somewhere that has politicians that represent the will of the people enough to have a take like this. Where I live, your vote only counts if you have enough money.

https://www.usebruno.com/

Dunno if the concern is that "you can't find a copy of the blog post" so much as "why is this admin removing this stuff and/or making it harder to find". This seems bad to me and I don't think their headline is wrong.

That's uh... Quite a take

I find LLMs really useful on a daily basis but I keep wondering, what's going to happen when the VC money dries up and the real cost of inference kicks in? Its relatively cheap now but its also being heavily subsidized. The usual answer is to just jam ads into your product and slowly increase the price over time (see: Netflix) but I don't know how that'll work for LLMs.

A system that rewards our worst instincts is exhibiting a failure. There are worse systems, sure. But capitalism has its own downsides and this is one of them.

1. According to who? Open AI? 2. Its current state is "basically free and containing no ads". I don't think this will remain true given that, as far as I know, the product is very much not making money.

History would indicate that if the you make a bubble big enough and then it pops, you don't have to clean up the mess. 2008 wasn't that long ago.

The fact that Bezos is saying this is precisely why the commenter is asking this. He clearly stands to benefit massively from the bubble. Statements like this are meant to encourage buy-in from others to maximize his exit. Presumably "rich" refers to those, like Bezos, who already have incredibly disproportionate wealth and power compared to the majority of people in the US. I'm honestly not sure what the thrust of your comment even is.

The issue is one of power imbalance. It's not a new observation to say that money basically equates to power. The more money you have, the more influence you have, the more you get your way. And the more you don't have to care about what anyone else thinks. You become completely detached from the needs and wants of the majority around you because as long as your needs and wants are being met you have no reason to work with anyone else. They need you more than you need them OR you have so much more money/power that you don't really need to account for their well-being at all. There is no material difference to you at a certain point. And the gap between who Has and who Has Not is getting larger. By a lot.

How can the world continue to function this way if fewer of us have so much wealth that the rest of us effectively have no say in how the world works?

The downside is that we're funneling our money and information to a very small number of people. As the imbalance grows, there is less and less reason for the rich people to give a shit about what the not so rich people think or want for their lives. Short term, woo hoo. Long term, not great.

（Disclaimer: This blog post was drafted with the help of a language model, but all opinions expressed are my own.）

This is when I head to an LLM to summarize the key take-aways. If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it. That said, I certainly agree with the summary! :P