Yeah I think the masses are going to be a tough sell on Linux until computer manufacturers start offering Linux builds with a pre-installed instance.

I’m sure there are places that do it but there’s probably money to be made in just setting up Linux on machines for people.

Wow, this is bleak.

I read somewhere (I think the deloitte tech survey from a few years ago) that many people have replaced their pc with smartphones and use their phone as their primary tech device. Would be interesting to see if any of these low-level skill folks are actually high (or higher) on mobile skills.

I look forward to Apple Marketing coming up with their usual line of nonsense, like a meaningless name for an existing capability that they are claiming to have invented.

Nice! I got it right after the latest version came out but that’s been a while. They do sales pretty regularly though. It’s definitely not as massive as Adobe wrt features, but they cover the essentials well.

Guys, seriously. The entire Affinity Suite is $150. Paid for updates through the current version. It’s solid.

Dump Adobe.

Holy shit what a ride that was.

It’s clear from a lot of stories like this (severe customer mistreatment) that United employees are miserable people who hate their jobs but this is nuts. I hope Dr. Dao got a huge settlement from United.

I don’t have much direct experience working in agile since I tend to work on the business side but I can tell you that the term agile is WAY overused. So many projects are described as agile when they are just waterfall with more steps. Leaders love to say they are working in agile because it sounds ‘techy’ and cool, but I don’t think they fully appreciate what it is vs other methods. I wonder if a lot of the failed projects described in the article are some of those agile in name only kind of things.

My thinking is that it reads like the author is dismissing the whole notion that AI has risks and that the folks raising concerns were just repeating an overblown doomsday narrative.

That’s what I thought and I expected to see a lot of promoting for the shiny new things and dismissing safety efforts as dampening innovation.

The title of this article is misleading. It’s actually a nice summary in how AI firms have conveniently forgotten their own warnings and predictions of the dangers of AI now that they no longer need to use that messaging in making pitches to investors.

Thr problem the AI tools are going to have is that they will have tons of things like this that they won’t catch and be able to fix. Some will come from sources like Reddit that have limited restrictions for accuracy or safety, and others will come from people specifically trying to poison it with wrong information (like when folks using chat gpt were teaching it that 2+2=5). Fixing only the ones that get media attention is a losing battle. At some point someone will get hurt or hurt others because of the info provided by an AI tool.

I wonder if Open AI or any of the other firms have thought to put in any kind of stipulations about monitoring and moderating reddit content to reduce ai generated posts and reduce risk of model collapse.

Anybody who’s looked at reddit in the past 2 years especially has seen the impact of ai pretty clearly. If I was running open ai I wouldn’t want that crap contaminating my models.

They must have fucked up some mundane detail like misplacing a zero or something.

I don’t get why companies pull such shady crap to get behavior data. 99% of it is useless and never even is used to make improvements to products or processes.

For real. If ever there were a time to hop on an Amtrak, I think this would be a good one.

They cut thousands of jobs in the name of efficiency, then roll out an AI customer service bot to replace people in managing problems with their flashy new AI tool that is glitching out, more expensive and delivering worse results.

Surely nobody saw this coming right?

Why couldn’t journals require authors to disclose use of any AI tool along with specific prompts used? It shouldn’t be too hard to manage that.

Preach, friend. I’m so sick of seeing how everything is getting some useless AI service jammed into it for no reason. At best its just a pointless feature that can be ignored. At worst it’s a data and memory vacuum that mines people’s activity in the name of “product improvements”.

What I don’t get is how no company seems to have worked out a legitimately good service and maintenance model for tech products. Fairphone hasn’t invented the wheel here. They’re going to make money on maintenance, parts and repair.

I would think there would be lowered costs involved in not having to push out a new product every 6 months and market it to customers who just bought something less than a year ago.

I still don’t understand why they keep going after piracy when it is a symptom of the bigger problem. Movies today are expensive and often made inaccessible through BS digital services that periodically just make films and TV unavailable to save server space or avoid paying for licensing.

I would guess that the vast majority of people are not pirating content. I’d also guess that if digital providers and studios would actually try to change the distribution model that allows customers to buy content that is later turned off on a whim, they would see meaningful change in piracy activity.

Interesting that so much of the creative industry is supportive of the bill, but that the MPA isn’t (or at least hasn’t explicitly come out in support). I’m guessing that is reflective of the production companies’ interest in using AI trained on creative content to eliminate the reliance on talent.