emccue

"We are Charlie Kirk" or Dagoth Ur, or Joe Biden, Trump, and Obama playing Call of Duty i'd also put in this category.

I want to highlight a comment someone made elsewhere in the thread.

> I recently wrote a technical post on my blog where I thought it would be kind of funny to add some genAI of me doing stuff, some people told me they stopped reading immediately once they saw those images… it’s making me reconsider honestly :-/

It was one of the many here that got flagged. Boy howdy this got spicy. But this is the situation I am talking about. Some might think its fine, but a lot of people won't so its usually not worth it unless you want to narrow your audience.

I am genuinely curious what you mean by this. I mean it sounds obvious you are saying that Indians hate AI art, i'm just curious why that group specifically?

(I don't have my finger on the pulse of that nation, i'm afraid)

Lets just put that aside for a minute because right now, in the present, people often can tell. And when they can tell, which is often, it is a net negative choice to use AI art.

Which is my point.

Okay but sometimes people despise things and then they go away or get stigma'd into a corner. There is selection bias in that list.

But either way, I'm talking about *the present* which is the time we all live in. Opining that in the future maybe it will be different is like - sure? Not super relevant though.

And to emphasize: I am fully aware that there are people who don't care. Of course there are people who see no issue with it.

But there aren't people for whom it is a positive, just those for which it fails to be a negative. It creates a severe negative impression or a neutral one.

That is a terrible tradeoff!

Note that you don't think its awesome. The best case scenario for someone normal is for them to be totally neutral. To think "its fine." The worst case is they think less of you and anything associated.

That is not a worthwhile risk - and thats the thing I am super confused more people don't have an intuitive sense of.

I think I compelled a lot of emotions with a relatively short one here. (Not that I'm one to defend myself generally; this was just something I felt like I was taking crazy pills on because how can folks not see it?)

> But maybe I’m just one of those people with “minor cases of major brain damage”.

Hey, you said it not me

"Its the year 2076. I can finally post my AI generated art without people being mad at me. Its a paradise."

Sephiroth posting on main

What a fascinating take. Framing it like "they wouldn't care if your jobs went away!"

Like wtf? What world is this that you live in?

In this case use of an AI image, if people can clock it (which is super funny people are thinking "well, what if they can't tell!"), is the issue unto itself.

There is no using AI image generators _well_ if you care how people perceive you and your work.

Yeah people seem to think that the issue is that the output isn't "high quality enough," which is a super strange misconception about the role of art even in a commercial setting. Like if it just gets "good" in some mechanical way that people will start to like it.

(do give the artist more commissions. They need to eat and are on my shortlist for stuff like this. Here's a sexy Jar-Jar Binks/Garfield hybrid they made https://bsky.app/profile/dsoart.com/post/3ml2f4aqsf22t)

In this case the random dinosaur is plot relevant albeit just a placeholder, but maybe i'm not following what they are complaining about?

Yeah so, tech people tend to be in a bubble with regards to AI perception. I implore you to just ask around outside of your immediate sphere. Bring it up, let them talk.

I mean, there is rational justification for why people feel the way they do.

It turns into a long tirade about how AI has made the median person's life worse and how they associate generated images with that. It could also be a short tirade.

But the point is more that it is that way, its not important (for the purposes of choosing whether to use AI art in a thing you distribute) _why_ people feel this way though, just that they do.

Author here. It was the first one. (Not to take away from your point - but i will die shameful if anyone thinks I "spent time prompting.")

i forgot. sorry.

Mr Krabs!?

One of the drawbacks about protocols mentioned in the talk is no longer correct. Protocols can now dispatch on metadata, not just type.

    (defprotocol Dog
      :extend-via-metadata true
      (bark [_]))

Selenium?

That stack birthed almost an entire category of QA jobs.

Microsoft AI Revenue In 2025: $13 billion, with $10 billion from OpenAI, sold "at a heavily discounted rate that essentially only covers costs for operating the servers."

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $80 billion

---

Amazon AI Revenue In 2025: $5 billion

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $105 billion

---

Google AI Revenue: $7.7 Billion (at most)

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $75 Billion

---

Meta AI Revenue: $2bn to $3bn

Capital Expenditures In 2025: $72 Billion

---

The math is bad, but its not "bad math."

(Numbers from here: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-haters-gui/)

The entire US stock market is propped up by big tech companies spending massively on Data Centers and GPUs for AI. OpenAI is valued higher than Netflix.

A company that can pull in single digit billions in revenue for hundreds of billions in expenses just doesn't make sense.

> Most businesses are not using these systems t̶o̶ ̶d̶r̶a̶w̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶a̶p̶.̶

FTFY

And no - while it might be obvious from the outside in that it probably won't happen, the continued existence of the business is still predicated on conversion to a for-profit. They don't just need the amount of money they've already "raised", they need too keep getting more money forever.

It regurgitates the list in text form, which is almost certainly in the training data.

But this company is valued more than Netflix. The bar should not be this low.

Uber's whole schtick is being what was an already profitable business model (Taxis) with lower overhead/easier access.

That money they burned was on customer acquisition, building infrastructure, etc. The unit economics of paying to be driven to the airport or Benihanas was always net positive.

They weren't losing money on every customer, even paying ones. There just isn't a business model here.

I asked it to make a drawing of the US with every state numbered from biggest to smallest with 1 being the largest.

Maine was #89 (That is not a typo.) and Oregon was #1.

OpenAI as a company simply cannot exist without a constant influx of investor money. Burning money on every request is not a viable business model. Companies built on OpenAI/Anthropic are similarly deeply unprofitable businesses.

OpenAI needs to convert to a for-profit to get any more of the funding that Softbank promised (that its also unclear how Softbank itself would raise) or to get significant cash from anyone else. Microsoft can block this and probably will.

It all reminds me of that Paddy's Dollars bit from it's always sunny.

"We have no money and no inventory... there's still something we can do... that's still a business somehow..."

So I looked up DBT - it seems to be a company where the first thing I saw on their website was "Gen AI."

That doesn't inspire confidence in the longevity of their offering - but i'm also unclear exactly what it is they are offering. Can you give the audience the pitch?

So an intrinsic problem with flattening the database is that a lot of applications actually do want to work on a tree of information (that's what the json query part is all about)

Dropping a view can work, but not when the system is under load (found that out the hard way.) I'm not saying its the worst possible situation, just a greater burden than you would expect going into it.

Can you elaborate on `instead of` triggers? How do you make use of those?

Yeah - in another place this was shared a few people mentioned that. It is slated to be part of postgres 18, but as of right now to get the "good UUIDs" you need to homeroll something.

Thats the only reason I didn't mention it, seemed a bit of a rabbit hole.