What is incredibly disgusting for me, is the idea that there can be only one winner in the stock market, which spits in he face of free market competition.
This is not an AI thing, this is a stocks thing, which Ive been complaining about incessantly.
If a given domain, like AI, has competition, that means you have to sell things at cost + margin, and rush ahead or be crushed by competitors. Will definitely make you good money, but wont make you a king.
This is not the kind of money people involved with these kinds of companies are looking for.
AI right now looks like a competiton, with many horses in the race, which are more or less building the same product.
It will hard to squeeze and enshittify this considering people can just jump to another vendor, thus if the current market structure were to prevail, investors would go.
Thus competition has to go.
Altman knows this, and tried to position OpenAI as the obvious winner in this competition, but I guess in the process he managed to alienate people, so now he's not doing so well.
Off topic, but I found Sonnet useless. It can't do the simplest tasks, like refactoring a method signature consistently across a project or following instructions accurately about what patterns/libraries should be used to solve a problem.
It's crazy because when Sonnet came out it was heralded as the best thing since sliced bread, and now people are literally saying it's "useless". I wonder if this is our collective expectations increasing or the models are getting worse.
New models come out with inflated expectations, then they are adjusted/nerfed/limited for whatever reason. Our expectations remain at previous levels.
New models come out with once again inflated expectations, but now it's double inflation, because we're still on the previous level of expectations. And so on.
I think it's likely to get worse. Providers are running out of training data, and running bigger and bigger models to more and more people is prohibitively expensive. So they will try to keep the hype up while the gains are either very small or non-existent.
This sounds like every LLM workflow, which is 'you tell the LLM what you want'.
The real distinction is of scale - whether you want a REST endpoint or a fully functional word processor.
But real, actual, complex software is at least half spec (either explicit, or implicitly captured by its code), the question is, can LLMs specify software to the same degree with Gas Town, that you get something functioning?
Thing is, panels are so cheap that if you put them on your roof, it very well might cost the same or less as roof tiles per m2.
You can also put more panels on than the rated peak of your inverter. As long as you don't surpass voltage limits, if you put on more panels, youll get more generation during non-peak hours, and it wont even affect your inverter negatively.
Usually you can easily put 2x+ the peak wattage, as your inverter likely has 2 strings, and each of them can take the whole capacity of the inverter alone.
Though if we steer the conversation towards sovereignity, it bears mentioning that all components of solar installs (inverters, panels, and batteries) tend to be made in China, and afaik just recently they revoked some tax breaks that applied to solar equipment.
Sovereignty doesn't mean autarky. Gas requires continuous resupplying which depends on maintaining relations with foreign countries. Solar requires you to acquire equipment to set it up, but doesn't require an ongoing relationship beyond that. Having invested heavily in solar doesn't give china a veto in your political affairs thereafter, except to the degree they would have one otherwise.
According to data from 2021, China produced 79.4 % of all polysilicon (the most energy hungry part of PV production) in the world, 96.8% of all wafers.
I think the EU is just a bunch of countries in a trenchcoat. The main reason for this is the lack of mobility between countries. Each country has its own language, and more importantly social security, benefits, taxes, and the properties are much more expensive compared to salaries than pretty much anywhere in the world.
So either you're a long term renter with locked in low rates, or own an apt, so you have very little incentive to move. People who do move usually come from a poorer part to a richer part, and once in their lives, or they move to a warmer country like Spain when they retire.
> An oft brought-up issue is that the code on crates.io and in Git don’t always match.
I don't understand why this is the case. Imo it should be a basic expectation, that a given package is built from a frozen, dedicated git commit (represented by hash), and a likewise frozen build script. The build should be deterministic, so that the end result should be hashed, and the build script ran by some trusted vendor (maybe github), and the end result hashed.
If there's any doubt about the integrity of a package, the above process can be repeated, and the artifacts checked against a known hash.
Sorry, by build script I mean the script that generates the package, not the actual build. That should run on the build server, not the developer's machine.
I think it would be better if the build process ran on both the build server and the devs machine and get the exact same output on both with deterministic/reproducible build processes.
Which build server? Not everyone has the luxury, and that also means you have to secure a build server now too. For rust, there is no build server. Packages are distributed as code.
This is not an AI thing, this is a stocks thing, which Ive been complaining about incessantly.
If a given domain, like AI, has competition, that means you have to sell things at cost + margin, and rush ahead or be crushed by competitors. Will definitely make you good money, but wont make you a king.
This is not the kind of money people involved with these kinds of companies are looking for.
AI right now looks like a competiton, with many horses in the race, which are more or less building the same product.
It will hard to squeeze and enshittify this considering people can just jump to another vendor, thus if the current market structure were to prevail, investors would go.
Thus competition has to go.
Altman knows this, and tried to position OpenAI as the obvious winner in this competition, but I guess in the process he managed to alienate people, so now he's not doing so well.
But who knows what the future will bring?
reply