Zero switching costs? Maybe the way I use AI, where I don’t really need it to know about me and I just ask it knowledge questions. A lot of people seem to be trying to make it a friend who knows everything about them.
Almost any online service has plenty of competition, but it doesn't prevent enshittification once one of them proves that you can squeeze more revenue out of users and get away with it. Netflix charges you the same as five years ago, but you now get ads. You pay for Amazon Prime and get ads. You pay for Spotify, but they now serve you AI music from fake bands to avoid paying royalties to humans. The end game is that all consumer LLMs have ads in the free / cheap tier.
And as other folks are saying, the whole point is that it's a different type of an ad: it's not an annoying pop-up or an unskippable video. It's a subtle recommendation that you don't even notice. High conversion rates, little fatigue... getter than all the cool characters smoking in films a while back.
> I don't understand why there's so much fearmongering about ads when heavy competition + zero switching costs will effectively guarantee good UX.
I mean literally every other technology sector has gone the other way, but i'm sure this one for reasons will be completely different. I mean of course, it just makes sense.
There’s a tradeoff here. If you want streaming output, then you lose the opportunity to clean it up in post processing such as removing filler words or removing stutters, etc., or any other AI based cleanup.
The MacOS built-in dictation streams in real time and also does some cleanup, but it does awkward things, like the streaming text shows up at the bottom of the screen. Also I don’t think it’s as accurate as Parakeet V3, and there’s a start up lag of 1-2 secs after hitting the dictation shortcut, which kills it for me.
I feel like this is a solvable problem. If you emit an errant word that should be replaced, why not correspondingly emit backspaces to just rewrite the word?
I feel like this is the best of both worlds.
Perhaps a little janky with backspaces, but still technically feasible.
The word "loop" here has multiple meanings. Only one is what you mean and the other person responding to you has understood another.
The first is the DDT control loop, what a human driver does. Waymo's remote assistants aren't involved in that. The computer always has responsibility for the safety of the vehicle and decisionmaking while operating, which is why Waymo's humans are remote assistants and not remote drivers. Their safety drivers do participate in the DDT loop, hence the name.
But there's also another "loop" of human involvement. Sometimes the vehicle doesn't understand the scene and asks humans for advice about the appropriate action to take. It's vaguely similar to captchas. The human will usually confirm the computer's proposed actions, but they can also suggest different actions. The computer the advice as a prior to continue operating instead of giving up the DDT responsibility. There's very likely a closely monitored SLA between a few seconds to a few minutes on how long it takes humans to start looking at the scene.
If something causes the computer to believe the advice isn't safe, it will ignore it. There have been cases where Waymos have erroneously detected collisions and remote assistants were unable to override that decisionmaking. When that happens, a vehicle recovery team is physically sent out to the location. The SLA here is likely between tens of minutes and a couple hours.
And yet RAM prices are still sky high. Game consoles are getting more expensive, not cheaper, as a result. When will competition benefit those consumers? Or consumers of desktop RAM?
Not really. Investors with hundreds of billions of dollars have decided it. The process by which capital has been allocated the way it has isn't some mathematically natural or optimal thing. Our market is far from free.
Saying "investors with hundreds of billions decided it" makes it sound like a few people just chose the outcome, when in reality prices and capital move because millions of consumers, companies, workers, and smaller investors keep making choices every day. Big investors only make money if their decisions match what people actually want; they can't just command success. If they guess wrong, others profit by allocating money better, so having influence isn't the same as having control.
The system isn't mathematically perfect, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. It works through an evolutionary process: bad bets lose money, better ones gain more resources.
Any claim that the outcome is suboptimal only really means something if the claimant can point to a specific alternative that would reliably do better under the same conditions. Otherwise critics are mostly just expressing personal frustration with the outcome.
Europe is prematurely regarded as having lost the AI race. And yet a large portion of Europe live higher quality lives compared to their American counterparts, live longer, and don't have to worry about an elected orange unleashing brutality on them.
If the world is built on AI infrastructure (models, compute, etc.) that is controlled by the CCP then the west has effectively lost.
This may lead to better life outcomes, but if the west doesn't control the whole stack then they have lost their sovereignty.
This is already playing out today as Europe is dependent on the US for critical tech infrastructure (cloud, mail, messaging, social media, AI, etc). There's no home grown European alternatives because Europe has failed to create an economic environment to assure its technical sovereignty.
Europe has already lost the tech race - their cloud systems that their entire welfare states rely upon are all hosted on servers hosted by American private companies, which can turn them off with a flick of a switch if and when needed.
When the welfare state, enabled by technology, falls apart, it won't take long for European society to fall apart. Except France maybe.
This will absolutely help but to the extent that prompt injection remains an unsolved problem, an LLM can never conclusively determine whether a given skill is truly safe.
What kind of nonsense is that. SpaceX 2024 revenue barely broke $10B, if that. Launch was probably ~$4B and Starlink probably ~$5B. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and double those just for shits and giggles and that's still less than $20B and you're claiming >$100B? Horse shit. Nonsense.
