Cars don't run. And even if they did, or you tortured the definition to include rolling on fairly straight prepared paths as running, it is only better for specific definitions of better.
Cars are faster on reasonable traversable terrain. Are they more or less energy efficient? Under what circumstances? Do they self navigate the best path around obstacles? Better is really subjective.
And this applies to the large language models too. Just like calculators, they are going to do some things better, or maybe cheaper. But I've played with them trying to get them to write non-trivial programs, and they really do fail confidently. I suspect the amount of source code online means that any common problem has been included in the training data, and the LLM constitutes a program. So, at this point for programming, it's fancy Google. And that has value, but it is not intelligence.
I am not saying we (as a society) shouldn't be worried about these developments. Near as I can tell, they will mostly be used to further concentrate wealth among the few, and drive people apart because we already can't settle on a common set of (reasonably) objective facts about what is going on -- both problems are probably the same thing from different perspectives...
Except it is the speech of those pressuring the company that is free. I can tell a company that supports things I don't agree with that I won't be a customer. If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.
No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
> If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.
The problem is, that it is not customers doing it. That would be classic boycott.
It is pressure on supply chain, to isolate "misbehaving" company.
Similar to racketeering.
> No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
That's OK. But this is not about giving money or attention to Elon Musk. It is about pressuring others not giving money or attention to Elon Musk. And if you don't comply, you will be isolated too.
The internet was meant to be used by people who knew how the internet worked. Herein lies the problem.
This might sound like gatekeeping, and maybe it is. When these systems were designed, they were not designed to be used by everyone. They were not designed to be commodities that are bought and sold, with the most valuable trinket available being the attention of the user. But this is where we are.
Few are capable of running their own _anything_ on the internet, and even fewer have the desire to do it, because if you run it well for yourself (as an individual), someone else will want you to do it for them because you are already doing it, so it's not that much more work, right? \s
Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.
The notion that anything really works on the internet with the assumptions that were made in the 70s and 80s, and the realization that what holds most of it together is the blood and sweat of ops, duck tape, and fever dreams consistently astonishes me. In the not so distant past, someone paid me to write them a custom FTP server. In the 21st century. It's like being asked to whittle an engine block out of a tree.
> Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.
I'll go further: centralised systems can emulate decentralised systems, but not vice versa. Thus, ultimately, the only USP of a decentralised system is that it is decentralised for the sake of being decentralised, and nobody cares much about that. Centralisation is inevitable, and wins out every time.
They can pretend to be decentralized, but they can't emulate the lack of centralized authority.
People certainly care enough about centralization once it's consistently abused in ways that hurt them (which always happens eventually, given enough time). Our existing anti-monopoly laws came about like that.
This is the worst kind of article. It lays on the fear porn thick:
"Your child will just not get on the ventilator, your child will be CareFlighted to Temple or Oklahoma City or wherever we can find them a bed, but they won't be getting one here unless one clears"
The article falsely makes it seem like children are dying of covid, when their hospitalized and the actual claim being made is that if you're in a car crash your kid won't get the treatment it needs.
It states 11,000 hospitalizations in the state, and then berries at the end that there's 323 open ICU beds. Elsewhere talk to this article is the gem that it's summer and people are going on vacation, nurses and doctors, and so this is actually a managed shortage, and doctors and nurses can come back from vacation early if there's actually a problem.
Nowhere does it State how many unstaffed beds are available.
And all from a judge.
I'll give it a d plus, just because it provided most of the relevant facts even if it totally misconstrued everything else
glad you have it all figured out—may I ask how you achieved this enlightenment? did the sense of superiority over others come with it or was that the result of something else?
