Taken to its logical conclusion, companies offering WFH would then be morally justified in replacing US workers with cheaper third world options. UK salaries in tech for example are about 1/4-1/3 of US levels.
At some point time difference kills any productivity gain. West Coast to West Europe is barely workable even if everyone in the "secondary" zone is self-sufficient.
However, hiring engineers from Latam could indeed be an option to replace US workers if they can't offer an edge. The issue here is the language barrier.
China is the greatest civilisational threat to the West we have seen since Persia or the Umayyad Caliphate. The fact that the West has allowed letting China grow as much as it has done will be seen as one of the most fatal mistakes in grand strategy in history. That strategy had a purpose for defeating the Soviet Union, but after it had collapsed China had served its purpose for us and should have been isolated by the international community again.
Exactly, the West can bring to bear its might on Vietnam if they step out of line, especially since they themselves are not much fans of the Chinese and will be more than happy to work with the West.
For Western consumers and companies we have learnt the lesson that if we want to keep the flow of cheap products, we need to diversify the pool of labour we draw upon and to keep them dependent instead of building them up to be competitors in the supply of products as well as competitors as consumers of those products.
The crucial moment in the China strategy was in 2008 when we should have started on/friend shoring rather than leaving it until now. Instead with the West facing economic calamity at the time, we wanted the economically easy solution of letting China continue its integration into the global supply chain.
This is a typical case where cynical answers are wrong. The good thing about Chinese manufacturing isn't that it's cheap - it hasn't been cheap for a while now. It's that they're really good at it.
Nothing's as expensive as a product that doesn't work.
All of modern science is possible without philosophy. In fact, it is when what was called natural philosophy broke off into the natural sciences that philosophy per se devolved into a series of language games on metaphysics that became of little relevance aside from those in the philosophy profession itself.
All our modern advances from hypersonic missiles, large language models, quantum physics and spaceflight and are in spite of what is called philosophy, not due to it.
To turn this around, is all of modern philosophy possible without science? And critically, do we want it to be?
Advances, musings and insights in one domain do not preclude those in others, just as the ethical and epistemological boundaries (and possible trajectories) of missiles, models and spacecraft do not suddenly disappear just because we invented them.
Even moreso, the surrounding language games can be just as impactful: doomsday clocks, Turing tests and space supremacy have informed many policies on the docket, well before any practical applications were feasible. In these instances, it would be (and has been) quite difficult to seperate the science from our language, just as the other way around.
I see the hacker mindset has become a 'pro-profit' enterprise!
Perhaps consider a worldview where the many talented people who actually write the code can be properly compensated for the fruits of their labor, rather than someone far-removed from the process simply holding a paper that says they own the deed to the company.
Among the riskiest economic decisions you can make is to hire a software developer. A bunch of things have to line up just right to even break even on a developer's output.
Developing generative AI ‘application’ on microsoft’s land and terms. A lot of concepts here tie one to microsoft. The OPs post is a good conceptual primer that isn’t mentioned or explained in this tutorial.
You're not kidding, they tout their "Microsoft for Startups" offering but you cannot even get past the first step without having a LinkedIn.
On another note, OPs post above (not TFA) may as well be taglined "the things OpenAI and Microsoft don't want you to see" - I'm willing to bet that it will be a long, long time before Microsoft and OpenAI are actually interested in educating the public (or even their own customers) about how LLMs actually work - the ignorance around this has played out massively to their favor.
> this post is for a course on developing generative AI applications
Using Microsoft/OpenAI ChatGPT and Azure.
There's a much wider world of AI, including an extremely rich open source world.
Side note: it feels like the early days of mobile. Selling shovels to existing companies to add "AI". These won't be the winners, but rather products that fully embrace AI in new workflows and products. We're still incredibly early.
As far as the tool makers go, there are so many shovels being sold that it looks like it'll be a race to zero margin. Facebook announced Emu, and surprise, next day Stable Video comes out. ElevenLabs raised $30M, all of their competitors did too, and Coqui sells an on-prem version of their product.
Maybe models are worth nothing. Maybe all the value will be in how they're combined.
This field is moving so fast. Where will the musical chairs of value ultimately stop and sit?
The cynicism that regards hero worship as comical is always shadowed by a sense of physical inferiority, Yukio Mishima. You reveal more here about your own psychology than those who have a mission that they believe in and are passionate about. It's always easy to criticise from the sidelines.
It's main purpose would be as an event venue where people would travel there deliberately rather than as a sightseeing item, and Stratford is a travel hub with connections to all other travel hubs in London and by extension the rest of the UK.
