emptysongglass

This is totally non-credible. Their enterprise pricing was crazy for value and the feature-set slim. I personally was on a number of teams that refused to pay it and went with another player in the TACOS (Terraform Automation and COllaboration Software) family.

The TACOS provided way more features at a sane price point. They were out-competed by their own cottage industry and the BSL was their weapon to solve it. Surprise, surprise it backfired.

I respect Mitchell for the competent programmer he is but as a founder, he should have stepped in and done something to right the ship before it got this bad.

Just need a Linux version or an open source alternative now

Can you qualify "most Apple users"? I've never met anyone running the Telegram Swift client and this is the first I've heard of it.

> Except Flutter is a subpar experience on every platform because of just how slightly different it behaves

I'm not sure this is true. If you check the pulse of social media, most Flutter devs think Flutter is great for Android, iOS and desktop but needs help on web. Canonical at least rewrote their installer in Flutter and anything new they develop is in Flutter. Devs are hoping that the WASM support currently shipping in `master` [1] will solve for web.

[1] https://docs.flutter.dev/platform-integration/web/wasm

There's a lot of complaints that there isn't much in the way of tooling to create cross-OS compatible apps but I disagree. Just looking at solutions which aren't Electron:

- Telegram uses Qt and ships a performant native app across all three OSes

- Flutter compiles down to native code across all three (and mobile)

- Kirigami is a QtQuick framework that will give you an executable app across all mobile and desktop targets

Go and build your app. There's no reason this needs to an excuse to flame on Linux.

It looks extremely similar to me. I would not be pleased if I was behind Bun.

I was specifically speaking about the Nordic Model of which I am a member and a citizen. I could have been more clear but by "my" I meant as a citizen of a country participating in the Nordic Model. What the rest of Europe does is up to them. Unions are foundational to our (Scandinavia's) way of life. This fight ends with Tesla either agreeing to our model or losing our entire market.

> I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality

In America, yes. Painting Scandinavian unions as fomenting an us-vs-them mentality is more misunderstanding from people who don't understand what it's like to live and work here.

Exactly the same in the Danish subreddits. I'd assume the same in Norwegian and Finnish subs too. The feeling of camaraderie is nearly unanimous.

Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden. People want to be in unions. I want to be in my union. We feel good about them and employers (who respect our model) feel good about it too because it is cooperative.

For many reasons, the US has a model which is not cooperative but built on bitter enmity. This is repeated throughout the nation with e.g. cars vs bikes.

We do not have that here. This is Musk bringing all his prejudice to a bunch of countries he doesn't understand the norms and culture of.

I'd say we the citizens are largely in agreement and want Tesla (and Musk) to stop waging war on our model. The US having an antagonistic relationship with unions is not how we operate. Unions negotiate with our blessing and employers are by and large happy to deal with them.

So please consider that other models are possible that are cooperative not antagonistic.

> Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider.

You're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.

> It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties.

Whose law? Yours?

This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company.

EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.

This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough.

The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse.

I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.

Lemmy has been great for me. It took me about a week of scrolling through Lemmy's r/all equivalent to find enough interesting communities to sub and filtering out the rest. Now both my subscribed feed and all feeds are generally high quality and aligned with my interests. It does feel like they're growing.

You're guessing, which is a problem, and gives you license to conclude that:

> I don’t think agi will be that far away.

To,

> Give it the ability to have internal thoughts before speaking out loud

, you have no idea what that means technically because no one knows how internal thinking could ever be mapped to compute. No one does, so it's ok to not know, but then don't use it as a prior to guess.

Some have maybe seen this before, if you haven't I'll say it again: compute ≠ intelligence. That LLMs offer convincing phantasms of reasoning is what gives the outside observer the idea they are intelligent.

The only intelligence we understand is human intelligence. That's important to emphasize because any idea of an autonomous intelligence rests on our flavor of human intelligence which is fuelled by desire and ambition. Ergo, any machine intelligence we imagine of course is Skynet.

Somebody in some other conversation here pointed out the paperclip optimizer as a counterpoint but no, Bostrom makes tons of assumptions on his way to the optimizer, like that an optimizer would optimize humans out of the equation to protect its ability to produce paperclips. There's so many leaps of logic here which all assume very human ideas of intelligence like the optimizer must protect itself from a threat.

Something that's been fairly consistent here on HN throughout the debacle has been an almost fanatical defense of the board's actions as justified.

The board was incompetent. It will go down in the history books as one of the biggest blunders of a board in history.

If you want to take drastic action, you consult with your biggest partner keeping the lights on before you do so. Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley had no business being on this board. Even if you had safety concerns in mind, you don't bypass everyone else with a stake in the future of your business because you're feeling petulant.

> Wasn't that point already refuted by the paperclip maximizer thought experiment long before LLMs became a thing?

I mean, no, because Bostrom hypothesized that an AI given the task of maximizing paperclips would consume all life in its quest to produce paperclips but there's just so many assumptions in this chain of thought, it's not credible (to me).

Here's one portion of Bostrom's quote:

> The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off.

So Bostrom imagines the AI realizing? Ok, hold on there chief, there's about a few hundred priors you haven't addressed.

Better off without humans because humans might switch it off? So now we're talking about human feelings here. Emotions. Fear. There's my other comment down below that addresses that.

As long as we keep projecting our fears and emotions onto transformers we are no further along to understanding the extinction risk of LLMs than soothsayers rooting around in the entrails of dead animals are to understanding the outcome of battles.

I don't think the comparison is fair because chemical reactions and how they work was a part of the model of the theory that nuclear testing might blow up the world. We were dealing with real, testable models of the world all the way up to the nuclear tests.

This is more like, if I smash two fish together in the Large Hadron Collider there's a chance the universe ends. Which no one would tell you with a straight face was remotely possible. But! It's never been done before, so, possible?

We're human beings. One of the things humans do is project. We do it all the time. To the entire animal kingdom, to the gods of our theologies, you get where I'm going with this?

Well now our gods have come to visit us and much like the gods of our fantasies, they're proxies, a mirror to the best and worst of ourselves. Because we still largely operate on fear, we have a camp of end-of-the-worlders who believe these gods are ready to judge us guilty and murderbot us all.

Imagine if we were a species where fear was not the dominant feeling. We'd in all likelihood imagine transformers were harbingers of something else entirely.

A lot of HN chatter (and I'm inclined to agree) believe a number of those people involved are pro-safety to defend their moat and promote regulatory capture.

There's a very large contingent of ML researchers who think any idea of AI extinction risk is foolish because we don't have any evidence that intelligence equals compute. I've yet to see a single person give evidence that these two things are equal. What's more, the missing ingredient in any of these AGI extinction scenarios is desire (desire to act, desire to be, desire to love, to kill, etc.) and if you thought there was a paucity of evidence for intelligence = compute just wait till you see the evidence for transformers showing evidence of desire.

There's none. Not a shred of evidence. As ever, it's other human beings that are our greatest extinction risk.

I'm happy to defend any of my points. The commenter took issue with one. I responded to it. If you have something more to add, please critique what you disagree with.

I will say that using falsehoods as an attack doesn't put the rest of the commenter's points into particularly good light.

> Except it's not a "division" but an independent entity.

This is entirely false. If it were true, the actions of today would not have come to pass. My use of the word "division" is entirely in-line with use of that term at large. Here's the Wikipedia article, which as of this writing uses the same language I have. [1]

If you can't get the fundamentals right, I don't know how you can make the claims you're making credibly. Much like the board, you're making assertions that aren't credibly backed.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Sam_Altman

Highly unethical would be throwing the CEO of the division keeping the lights on under a bus with zero regard for the consequences.

The non-profit board acted entirely against the interest of OpenAI at large. Disclosing an intention to terminate the highest profile member of their company to the company paying for their compute, Microsoft, is not only the ethical choice, it's the responsible one.

Members of the non-profit board acted recklessly and irresponsibly. They'll be paying for that choice for decades following, as they should. They're lucky if they don't get hit with a lawsuit for defamation on their way out.

Given how poorly Mozilla's non-profit board has steered Mozilla over the last decade and now this childish tantrum by a man raised on the fanfiction of Yudkowsky together with board larpers, I wouldn't be surprised if this snafu sees the end of this type of governance structure in tech. These people of the board have absolutely no business being in business.

Because any defense of being able to orchestrate a professional coup and do your other work with the same zeal and focus as you did before fomenting rebellion I take as seriously as people who tell me they can multitask effectively.

It's just not possible. We're limited in how much energy we can bring to daily work, that's a fact. If your brain is occupied both with dreams of king-making and your regular duties at the job, your mental bandwidth is compromised.

How are you still hireable? If I knew you orchestrated two coups at previous companies and I was responsible for hiring, you would be radioactive to me. Especially knowing that all that effort went into putting together a successful coup over other work.

Coups, in general, are the domain of the petty. One need only look at Ilya and D'Angelo to see this in action. D'Angelo neutered Quora by pushing out its co-founder, Charlie Cheever. If you're not happy with the way a company is doing business, your best action is to walk away.

I know, personally, a dozen or so non-tech people who know of Sam, mostly because they listen to podcasts or consume other news sources that tell them.

Like the other commenter wrote: there's two standards. If you know how to touch-type, just set the virtual layout to whatever language you want: your fingers already know the rest.

I mean no offense, but are you not a touch typer? Labels are for training the fingers in the early stages of typing but devs should not be looking down once they've trained their fingers, which shouldn't take more than a year of practice.

> You replied to many top level comments for a period of time the same period of time with almost the same text.

I've reviewed my comments and this is mostly false. Not sure why you felt you needed to put this one in here.

> Does he not also have the right to call out IBM/Red Hat?

"Calling out" does not mean distorting facts to kickstart a rage-fuelled campaign against the company that offers, to this day, the most to the Linux ecosystem, free of charge, freely licensed.

To wit, he is an influencer, I am not, and should be much more careful with how he wields his influence. That was what I have re-iterated, comment by comment.

I very much dislike folks who use their influence to spread this stuff. Precisely because the way social media works, it amplifies into a crescendo of shallow takes and worst emotion. People with influence have a responsibility not to abuse their position. Calling them out on it (the first I've ever done) is not a "crusade".

It was hateful and yes it was a bandwagon. Go to any Reddit or Lemmy thread about the debacle to see what that looks like.