all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 63 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

If you still use meta products, you are part of the problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    You’re saying I can help destroy Facebook by using it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    Move fast and break things

    No, not like that!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Techbros didn't even invent that shit.

    That and "disruption" was just going into an existing market, flooding it quickly with cheap prices, and the second you squeeze out competition jack up rates.

    It's the same thing Walmart did.

    With AI they offer it cheaper than humans because they're burning investor cash and not making money. Once a company fires staff, their next AI contract switches to per token price instead of monthly unlimited.

    And then suddenly realizing the "rockstars" that kept their job because they were AI experts, were just sitting at their laptop 8 hours straight constantly prompting over and over again. After that they're paying more than they were before AI with a shittier product and completely unpredictable workflow completely reliant on AI usage.

    Hopefully we're reaching the point even c-suite execs figure it out. Once they do it'll pop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    the only problem I see with that theory is that the employee count reduction might let them go below legal limits requiring more bullshit making it cheaper to pay more for Ai than the people it replaced because you have less regulatory nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections

    It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns?

    Does slop not involve expensive machinery?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago

    70 percent increase of major incidents. Hmm..

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago

    Because ‘judgement’ is an inherently grounded ability, something LLMs cannot exercise, fundamentally, only mimic or approximate with heuristics. Sorry but obvious is obvious.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago

    Lmao, isn't that Zuckerberg's motto - Move fast, break things.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago*

    AKA huge mistakes a human would never make.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    Awwww they're just like us

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago

    I haven't seen a robot that could perform any task outside of a stumbling yet well edited/curated video setting.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    This proves that they will replace everyone - their only "mistake" that the technology is not there YET.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

    And by all indications LLMs will never be there - its speed of progression towards that has already pretty much ground to halt.

    Mind you, you're totally right that they will replace everyone if they can (i.e. if they get their hands on actual AGI), it's just that this tech direction is a dead end and won't get there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    No, I agree with you. Llms are not for this. And we can be both thankful and disappointed at the sme time about it :). AGI will be abterror to see. Not in a sense of how they will kill us, but in a sense of how fast big corpo will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    They can’t do AGI tho. They’re nowhere near being capable of even conceptually thinking about AGI.

    They talk like they are to scare their investors into pouring more capital into their furnace, but AGI ain’t happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments