Wow. That brought tears to my eyes. What a wonderful and upstanding woman. So many people — both men and women — would jump at the opportunity to play the victim card and amplify their private resentments against their spouse to glorify themselves when they got the spotlight like that. Instead she displayed immense character and honor in defending her husband. All of us should take a lesson from her example.
The real question should be why anyone would voluntarily continue to spend money on a software service that costs as much as an expensive computer when they could just buy an (upgradeable) expensive computer and use it as much as they want, approximately forever.
“One million high-paying upper-middle class family supporting jobs were destroyed, but on the bright side, one million minimum-wage Walmart greeter jobs were created! See? We’re breaking even!”
you seem to be discounting or unaware of the possibility of a) automating a significant chunk of new buildouts, and b) domestic companies seeking a slice of the “sell open model hosting for less than competitors” pie.
I truly believe the cost per token for most people will eventually go approximately to zero even in the absence of subsidy unless there is a dramatic state intervention to curtail free computing and hardware R&D and manufacturing.
There is this overwhelming desire on the part of many people to ascribe agency to LLMs when what the LLM really is is simply not a magic world model but a stochastic text generator. For some reason that truth haunts them and they have a deep compulsion to prove it wrong for feelings reasons. I can only surmise why this afflicts some people and not others and I’m sure that one day there will be fascinating psychological studies explaining such phenomena.
Let’s use the obvious example of a paint program. Clearly continuous 2D pointer input is an essential feature that would be almost impossible to replicate with only a keyboard. To step back a few levels, a node graph editor with many elements will simply always be easier to interact with using a mouse. But editing text and interacting with other applications such as visual debugger are really only a tiny bit removed from that.
In the future (ha ha ha) when everyone has become totally LLM dependent a service outage will cause all of them to stop walking and talking and otherwise functioning and their heads will simply droop down while they stand or sit silently in place.
Why not return a WrittenBuffer<'a>? This can also be used to specify the methodset allowed or required plus any further type transitions out of WrittenBuffer, for example into a new CompressedBuffer, or similar patterns.
I think my point is that types and “typestate” do not need to be two separate things. For example, in the Lua API for C, one obviously requires a Lua context handle in order to perform any other operations, so the handle must be obtained first, by calling the context initializer function. There is no need for an extra “typestate” parameter since the dependency is explicit and enforced.
That sounds like a Wrapper<Func1Payload>, not a Ticket<Func1Call> that will become an extra parameter of Func2 whose only purpose is to prove to Func2 that you called Func1.
Yes and no. The big advantage of a GUI is having interactive 2D coordinate input support (aka a pointer, or gestures.) While I think a keyboard can be a great control surface, that’s one thing it really lacks and only GUIs really offer. So to enforce that the whole GUI must be keyboard-drivable requires limiting the major advantage of the GUI. I’m a fan of the Emacs or Plan9 styles where the keyboard and pointer are able to be used together synergistically. You also see some of this in tools like video, DAW, and 2D/3D graphical scene editors.
You’re presuming here that CEOs cause companies to make profit instead of serving as a scapegoat for their often unavoidable market dynamics (at best).