mosura

MS has been particularly extreme for longer (decades, at least). Surely it is a statement of intent to others as well anyway.

If they were to do something positive with it then it would be nice.

Instead they are hell bent on criticizing and tearing down anyone that does, especially when their finance bros are invested in the legacy competition.

Disney have/had this amazing strategy diagram https://kottke.org/15/06/walt-disneys-corporate-strategy-cha...

The thing people fail to appreciate about media empires is there is no ad/not-ad distinction: it is all an ad, either for other products or for more of the same media.

Who they will paint as an asshole in order to get them ejected.

And it will be true because the only way to defeat these people is actually being an asshole.

> If you want to gatekeep or only create stuff to boost your own ego or portfolio, then AI might be an issue

One of the major cultural problems in open source software is it got dominated by people doing it purely for self promotion. Then it becomes an interview question, then all the incentives are warped on the promise of “get PRs merged, get paid big money”.

But yes, you are right.

You need to grasp that programmers dealt with this cope wave a year ago and know exactly how ideas like yours pan out.

Math people absolutely are important to things like the SpaceX landing control systems, hypersonic gliders, 5G networks and so on.

If you can make breakthroughs on such areas as fluid dynamics, control theory or information theory with AI then that absolutely is a big deal with real technological implications.

So let’s say OpenAI cure cancer and put every cancer researcher out of work depriving them of intellectual satisfaction, this would also be a problem? It would certainly impact the field.

The fact is these fields are supported by society because of the benefits to everyone else. Once the same results can be achieved in a cheaper and faster way that is what will be done. We should mourn this in the same way we do buggy whip manufacturers. Again people still ride horses.

> What the mathematicians are saying is stop pouring resources that most mathematicians can only dream of accessing into projects that are actively damaging to their field. They face a massive challenge of figuring out how maths can evolve in the face of this new technology, and this is not helping.

Is it reasonable for any field to make such demands? If this were doctors objecting to AI becoming good at medical practice would you have the same concerns?

While any idea of OpenAI spying on people to pursue their goals is disgusting, the rest of this is par for the course, as Kasparov experienced with IBM in the 90s. Humans still play chess after all.

An impressively strong assertion, even by HN Friday standards.

If you internalise that AI might actually reach super intelligence then logically the question becomes "so what exactly are humans for if literally everything can be done better by machines?". Then mathematics and all intellectual work, as argued for here, becomes quite clearly a recreational pursuit.

> reached for the boring “luddite” accusations.

Where? Straw manning, again.

Don’t feed the troll.

You have proved my point beautifully.

The absolute trolling that goes on here is related to the point.

You are entirely capable of checking what I wrote but insist on trying to drag this out with straw men and misinterpretations.

Of course people like you have a problem with AI since it will help everyone else move on and ignore you.

So basically you don’t understand english and/or don’t have the life experience to understand the context of the article.

But you are very angry about it.

Being able to avoid people like you is the entire selling point. No wonder it annoys you.

> Right all those people protesting outside data centres are bureaucrats?

Not what was claimed.

> AI do absolutely nothing in terms of "avoiding the negative side effects imposed on me by other people"

Quite literally the subject of the article.

There's a general point here which is that the primary use and appeal of AI is to use it to avoid the negative side effects imposed on you by other people.

The flip side is the people with the biggest problems with AI are those that survive by imposing themselves on others in unnecessary ways, which is why so many bureaucrats are so enthused about regulating it.

That Google failed to turn Google Reader into a giant open blogging social network and instead created G+ is something we will still be wondering after Google itself has stopped existing.

Both FB and WhatsApp have serious lockin with this sort of thing, far more than X does.

You don’t understand words?

The problem with Finder is historic. The classic Mac finder was a work of art, if you are the sort of person that arranges things spatially, but most programmers are not. Hence NeXT created something else which got merged back incoherently into what became OSX.

The Risc OS filer remains king, largely because managing windows on Risc OS is much more tolerable.

You are one of the people I am on about.

Here you are just wanting to appeal to the guidelines to shut down inconvenient but true statements, again.

It is kind of nuts how little attention this more-than-controversial-enough aspect of it gets compared to anything else, to the point people don’t even know this about it.

I happen to hate Omarchy for the precise reason I don’t want that sort of interface, but apparently everyone else does, and if they do that’s up to them.

The fact comments like this get downvoted because what they say is inconvenient is one of the major signs AI has fundamentally broken HN.

It was already hard to have technical conversations in public, now there is a contingent determined to make it utterly impossible, and they are succeeding.

> The ideal scenario for a hyperscaler is an open architecture at the core with 10+ competing implementations -- including potentially their own.

This is what Arm actually is. Arm primarily functions as a talking shop for random insights to get back from integrators into the ISA and architecture, then cleared and released for everyone to use. The reason there are so few novel implementations of it is it just isn’t worth the trouble unless you are pushing mobile levels of units.

> If you think "chat control" is going to pass, I've a bridge to sell you.

I genuinely wish you were right, but you are so naive it is frightening.

> The amount of FUD spread about it on here by those working in Adtech

You are confused. You are arguing with people that want to protect privacy. The EU demonstrably is not doing that, as WhatsApp gets ever more de facto mandated by the day.

Which is like creating the Apple App Store for physical products.

You haven’t lived until you have done a model training run where different stages require mutually incompatible nvidia driver revisions and everything on top.

So you will defeat chat control by sitting there going “but you don’t have muh gdpr consent for that!”?

The whole EU vision is they know what the little people do all the time, think all the time, and spend their money on all the time. For the children, obviously.