Does that include the 60+% of CEOs that said their AI initiatives had shown no results?

I’ll believe that when I see software written by an LLM in production for 5 years. The code they write can’t really be iterated upon, so any time you want to alter behavior or refactoring, you essentially have to write that section again with the new design.

Maybe that will pan out in time, but so far all I’ve seen is marketing out extremely far ahead of reality, and that’s with today’s VC subsidized pricing. It threatens to increase in price from here, and further advancement is expected by many experts to yield diminishing returns now that the training pool is exhausted.

I’m not aware of any noteworthy small competitors in the space. Who do you mean?

Also, the big models are in the infant stages of turning the monetization screws. This could be a tactic to knock their owners’ legs out from under them. If they can’t turn up their prices as much or as fast as they had hoped due to the competitive pressure, venture capital may begin to divest sooner. At their current debt levels, that would literally end OpenAI and I believe also Anthropic.

If a temporary “permanent” price cut wipes out some competitors, that will make for smoother sailing in the future for them to raise prices more than they otherwise would have been able to, quickly recouping the cost of the price reduction and then all profit after that.

Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout

The hilarious irony is that is not even conclusive. There are plenty of studies, both real-world and contrived, that indicate that employers paying more, in broad, yields returns in excess of the added payroll costs.

Not only are there more customers, but increasing pay increases the quality and quantity of labor output.

I don’t know of any yet, but these “encryption is for crooks” laws all keep barely failing, so they have not had to yet, from what I’ve seen.

I think that for now you are still good to go with Plex. One suggestion, though: take a look at all your server and admin toggles. There are things that you may prefer to be off that are defaulted to opt-in.

I don’t have a working server at the moment so I can’t check the latest stuff for myself, but the last time I was able to, I found some stuff I could opt out of with just a click, mostly involving the Plaex Network and keeping my user accounts strictly local.

I feel exactly the same. Of all the genres of games, this one seems the most poorly differentiated. So, so many FPS games feel so very much like the others that I’m burned out on nearly all of them as though they were the same game. Sure, they each have their own metagame, and they have at least one special movement mechanic, but nearly everything else is so similar that I just can’t anymore.

That seems a strange carve out considering that no LLMs do anything without prompting, presumably by a human. Depending on the wording, the law may literally be unable to apply to any real scenarios.

But if that’s the case, perhaps a page out of the SovCit playbook would work: bombard them with lawsuits for copyrighting the work to prove it was written with human involvement.

I’m not sure why asking for a reference for the source is getting me negative points but does anyone have an a answer to the question? I’m looking for a review of the source of this article because I am not famiar with it.

Check the rules! I once heard there was no rule that a dog couldn’t be in the NBA.

deleted by creator

The most popular suggestion from their consumers was to re-implement an overt anti-consumer tactic? The hell?

There are jurisdictions where AI content can’t be copyrighted. I don’t see how an AI-written book could even exist in those places, since anyone could post it online for anyone to read.

I’m not familiar with this source, though I can see its Ukrainian. Can anyone fill in where I can review their quality? Forgive me for being suspicious of the “Truth” channel. 😅

It matters for passing a Constitutional amendment, but I do totally get your point. Rather than amend the Constitution to legalize an action he wants to take, he’ll just illegally do the action, then an army of talking heads will jabber incessantly some reasoning for how it is not illegal.

How that plays out is uncertain, but that’ll be how they do it.

Too bad there’s no “new world” to ship all the fundies off to this time.

That wasn’t his statement, though. He was saying that the super-rich are a tiny outlier group, so even an infrastructure personal tax that they manage to avoid will have minimal impact on the system at large, because they are so small that even heavy abuse in this scenario is a rounding error.

I think he is insinuating that a system that works but allows tiny groups to fall through the cracks would still be acceptable for this, which I tend to agree with.

It is much like in the past when welfare recipients were vilified because a tiny number of them found a way to qualify even though they made a bit too much money for it, or managed to double dip somehow to get more than was intended. The system still fills a need and more or less works (its grievous underfunding and paperwork hell notwithstanding) and is far better than nothing, so the statistically insignificant amount of fraud or evasion is an acceptable cost to people that understand statistics and are speaking in good faith.

True, though paying for it is no guarantee of ownership in this modern era, either.