4,610 karma · joined June 19, 2014
Honestly, the old boring business lingo of adding Pro and Max suffixes would have been clearer for both companies.
Also, cyclops is assuredly bigger than minotaur in almost any reference. And what's "ettin"?
A business plan is not a human right, you know. If I have a nice good idea to make money, but on random it may veer into illegal sometimes, I'm not entitled to just claim innocence because all other times it works in the legal just fine.
Just because uncontained AIs work in the legal most of the time, doesn't excuse people running these programs from when they veer into illegal.
Do they? I mean, after thinking about it for some time, I've realized that I can't prove it either way, neither for humans nor for programs. So it's interesting to hear why do you think they can make them? And what is even a "decision" in that case and what is not a "decision" and why?
In rare cases, even the "CLI native" tasks are easier to do in GUI, like for example sifting through a really big log dumps with long lines, or configuring a really long configuration file, or editing a giant nested JSON.
Or you don't need to craft a JWST with nail files anymore, but instead just lauch a swarm of mirrors to free float and emulate the whole thing. And if one mirror goes bad - just launch a new one for pennies (NASA pennies). Or if the whole project is nonviable somehow - no big deal, just launch next year a different architecture. Ok, not next year, but in like a few years. And not in three decades (LUVOIR anyone? hello? Is there anyone at NASA?), if on schedule, and forty years if not.
The list goes on. I get hedging risks and preserving institutional knowledge, sure. But not even discussing a different approach, which could be conducted in parallel, is very very bad.
NASA is stuck in the past and does it consciously and voluntarily.
There are many mutually independent opinions about AI from IT crowd.
- AI is extremely useful for many individuals.
- AI is extremely damaging to our society as a whole.
- AI companies possibly may be (or at least were) deep in red and possibly would require bailing out.
- AI is not going anywhere.
- A person can use AI extensively AND genuinely hate it and forecast general economic slump because of it at the same time.
And likely many other ideas in the same vein. And by the way, I'm not here saying that I'm anywhere good about describing the issues about AI, those items above are just some examples to illustrate the scope of opinions.
My point is that you can't just take one single argument from a big group of people, deconstruct it (correctly or incorrectly, it doesn't matter) and then claim that ALL arguments of such big group of people are false. It's not a constructive dialog.
PS: also despite the accusations of goal-post shifting, a vast majority of opinions here on HN didn't actually change over the past few years.
Same logic with pure AI corpos and adjacent dependents. If the doomsayers would ever be right about them being financially unsustainable, then most likely these companies would never get even close to the bankruptcy, simply because they would be bailed by external entities. So we would never be sure if OpenAI and Anthropic were "bad" or not, financially. Because either critics are wrong, or any corporate deficits would be covered by budget money (maybe foreign budget, it happens too).