This is a good write-up and useful content, but edit-wise it could be simplified significantly. Additionally, phrases like "let that sink in" are characteristic of poor LinkedIn content, which is a bit of an irony :)
While I agree with the sentiment, keep in mind that circumstances change over the years. What made sense (and what you've believed in) a few years ago may be different now. This is especially true when it comes to business models.
When your product entered mainstream with integration that would yield millions when virtually obliged to get a license is typically what happens.
When backed by a company there is an ethical obligation to keep, at least maintenance. Of course legally they can do what they wish. It isn't unfair to call it bad practice.
If offering a tie in thing supposedly free of charge without warning that would end once it serves a party less profit purpose then yes.
Ethics are not obligations, they are moral principles. Not having principles doesn't send you to prison that is why it isn't law. It makes you lose moral credit though.
That is ridiculous. If you buy a sandwich for a homeless person, you do not need to warn them that you won't give them another one tomorrow. If you think generosity is an obligation of slavery, you have your morals backwards.
However, almost every open source license actually DOES warn that support may end. See the warranty clause.
The parallel is what's ridiculous..because of the social understanding. Even if you face a sandwich every day, the offer could end anytime..a one off surely doesn't set expectations.
With open source it does. If an indie open sources and get a baby or lose interest, it is understood as fair to suddenly stop maintenance.
When a company surfs on the open source wave to get contributions, grow penetration, then smoothly slows maintenance and announces to get a license, that's gaming the open source community.
See the numerous cases of popular open source repo where the parent or new parent company took over to gain the user base without any respect for the maintenance if not development aspect: community fork and take over the community.
Mariadb, a more recent illustrative example of that is the hashicorp drama that occured when investors decided it was time to gear towards profit at the detriment of the community that largely contributed to the tools.
> If offering a tie in thing supposedly free of charge without warning that would end once it serves a party less profit purpose then yes
Claiming that you’re entitled to free R&D forever because someone once gave you something of value seems like a great way to ensure that nobody does that again. You got over a decade of development by a skilled team, it’s not exactly beyond the pale that the business climate has changed since then.
Those might be your moral principles, but others reject this nonsense of an obligation to perpetual free labor you think you're entitled to, and don't grant you this moral high ground you assume you have.
> When backed by a company there is an ethical obligation to keep, at least maintenance.
You're saying that a commercial company has an ethical obligation to do work for you in future, for free? That doesn't follow from any workable ethical system.
Not who you asked, but I don't like the effect they have on people. People develop dependence on them at the cost of their own skills. I have two problems with that. A lot of their outputs are factually incorrect, but confidently stated. They project an air of trustworthiness seemingly more effectively than a used care salesman. My other problem is farther-looking. Once everyone is sufficiently hooked, and the enshittification begins, whoever is pulling the strings on these models will be able to silently direct public sentiment from under cover. People are increasingly outsourcing their own decisions to these machines.
exactly. People are blindly dumping everything into LLMs. A few years into the future, will we have Sr or Staff enggs who can fix things themselves? What happens when claude has an outage and there is a prod issue?!
> You own the code your AI produces. Use your own name to commit AI code so that if something breaks, everyone blames you. This is critical. How well do you need to know the code your AI produces? Well enough that you can answer for its mistakes.
The in-ear HR is interesting. I wonder if Apple can make it accurate, e.g., Sennheiser Momentum are not very accurate[0]:
> Look, I’m not gonna waste your time – this thing is dumpster-fire inaccurate level in almost every realm of heart rate accuracy except for indoor cycling.
The hardware tech in place for HR is even more interesting.
"AirPods Pro 3 introduce a custom photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor that shines invisible infrared light pulsed at 256 times per second to measure light absorption in blood flow. Combined with sensor fusion from the AirPods Pro accelerometers, gyroscope, GPS, and a new on-device AI model on iPhone ..."
This same hardware, or its next iteration, will probably allow for silent speech recognition with a software update. This will be a total game-changer in terms of human-computer interactions.
Sadly, it'll be up to Apple to make this a reality since they don't expose the raw sensor data.
Apple wouldn't put in a medical sensor if it wasn't accurate, that's not their style and they know they'll get the most scrutiny (whereas nobody specifically has it in for Sennheiser, they're just one more brand among 100s).
If it wasn't yet up to par it would make it just give "warnings" instead of numbers (like the apnea and blood pressure measurements).
This is anicdata, but my watch is consistently 5-10bp higher than my clinically measured heart rate. Always and consistently. It's an actual issue for my health care that my doctor and I took some time to track down, and turns out Apple Watch is wrong.
The researchers had 24 healthy participants wear an Apple Watch Series 6—which is outfitted with the same blood oxygen reader as the newer Apple Watches—on their left wrist while placing the medical-grade reader on their left middle finger. The participants wore breathers that slightly reduced the oxygen they took in over a few different phases, and the researchers recorded the blood oxygen levels recorded by each device at 30-second intervals. The Apple Watch is very close to achieving accuracy levels of a pulse oximeter. The blood oxygen level (which is called SpO2 in the study) bias across all data points was 0 percent. Here’s the rest: “The bias for SpO2 less than 90% was 1.2%. The differences in individual measurements between the smartwatch and oximeter within 6% SpO2 can be expected for SpO2 readings 90%-100% and up to 8% for SpO2 readings less than 90%.”
Good marketing, but also possibly the start of the conversation on model welfare?
There are a lot of cynical comments here, but I think there are people at Anthropic who believe that at some point their models will develop consciousness and, naturally, they want to explore what that means.
If true, I think it’s interesting that there are people at Anthropic who are delusional enough to believe this and influential enough to alter the products.
To be honest, I think all of Anthropic’s weird “safety” research is an increasingly pathetic effort to sustain the idea that they’ve got something powerful in the kitchen when everyone knows this technology has plateaued.
I guess you don't know that top AI people, the kind everybody knows the name of, believe models becoming conscious is a very serious, even likely possibility.
Looks like we were unable to correct them over the last 3k years. What has changes in 2025 that you think we will succeed in correcting that behavior?
Not US based, Central/Eastern Europe: the selection to the teacher profession is negative, due to low salary compared to private sector; this means that the unproductive behaviors are likely going to increase. I'm not saying the AI is the solution here for low teacher salaries, but training is def not the right answer either, and it is a super simplistic argument: "just train them better".
>Looks like we were unable to correct them over the last 3k years.
What makes you say that?
>What has changes in 2025 that you think we will succeed in correcting that behavior?
60 years ago, corporal punishment was commonplace. Today it is absolutely forbidden. I don't think behaviors among professions need that much time to be changed. I'm sure you can point to behaviors commonplace 10 years ago that have changed in your workplace (for better or worse).
But I suppose your "answer" is 1) a culture more willing to hold professionals accountable instead of holding them as absolute authority and 2) surveillance footage to verify claims made against them. This goes back to Hammurabi: if you punish a bad behavior, many people will adjust.
>the selection to the teacher profession is negative, due to low salary compared to private sector; this means that the unproductive behaviors are likely going to increase.
I'm really holding back my urge to be sarcastic here. I'm trying really hard. But how do I say "well fund your teachers" in any nuanced way? You get what you pay for. A teacher in a classroom of broken windows will not shine inspiration on the next generation.
This isn't a knock on your culture: the US is at a point where a stabucks barista part-time is paid more than some schoolteachers.
>but training is def not the right answer either
I fail to see why not. "We've tried nothing and run out of ideas!", as a famous American saying. Tangible actions:
1) participate in your school board if you have one, be engaged with who is in charge of your education sectors. Voice your concerns with them, and likely any other town or city leaders since I'm sure the problem travels upstream to "we didn't get enough funding from the town"
2) if possible in your country, 100% get out and vote in local elections. The US does vote in part of its boards for school districts, and the turnout for these elections are pathetic. Getting you and a half dozen friends to a voting booth can in fact swing an election.
3) if there's any initiatives, do make sure to vote for funding for educational sectors. Or at least vote against any cuts to education.
4) in general, push for better labor laws. If a minimum wage needs to be higher, do that. Or job protections.
There are actions to take. They don't happen overnight. But we didn't get to this situation overnight either.
> This isn't a knock on your culture: the US is at a point where a stabucks barista part-time is paid more than some schoolteachers.
I don't think this is meaningfully true. I found a resource that shows the average teacher salary to be $72,030 [0]. The average starting salary is lower at $46,526, but a 40 hour workweek at $20 for a Starbucks barista tips-included is about $41k. Here in Massachusetts, the average teacher salary is $92,076. In Mississippi, it's $53,704. You can maybe find some full time (not part time) Starbucks baristas that make slightly more than starting teachers, but after a couple of years the teacher will pull ahead. However, since the higher paying Starbucks jobs are in places with higher costs of living, I would assume that the teacher pay would be higher in those places too, so it's a wash.
> "We've tried nothing and run out of ideas!", as a famous American saying.
Ironically Mississippi of all states has experimented by holding back more poor performing kids instead of letting them advance to the next grade, with some success in rising test scores: "Boston University researchers released a study this year comparing Mississippi students who were narrowly promoted to fourth grade to those who just missed the cutoff. It found that by sixth grade, those retained had substantial gains on English language arts scores compared with those who were promoted, especially among African-American and Hispanic students." [1].
This doesn't disprove what you're saying (and there are some caveats to the Mississippi experiment), but there is definitely low hanging fruit to improve the American teaching system. Just because teaching is a thousands year old profession doesn't mean modern day processes can't be improved by ways not involving salaries/direct training.
I'll admit "some schoolteacher" is doing some heavy lifting here. It shouldn't be that close to begin with when you remember that school teachers need extra license/acreddidation (so, more post secondary education whose costs run rampant) and arguably have a much more stressful job.
>there is definitely low hanging fruit to improve the American teaching system.
Sure, you can patch the window up and make sure it at least tries to protect from the elements. But we should properly fix it at some point too. How many of those kids would have not been held back if they had a proper instructor to begin with? Or an instructor that didn't need to quit midway into the school year in order to find a job that does pay rent?
reply