AFaithfulNihilist

A lot of people want a good tool that works.

This is not a good tool and it does not work.

Most of them don't understand that yet.

I am optimistic to think that they will have the opportunity find that out in time to not be walked off a cliff.

I'm optimistically predicting that when people find out how much it actually costs and how shit it is that they will redirect their energies to alternatives if there are still any alternatives left.

A better tool may come along, but it's not this stuff. Sometimes the future of a solution doesn't just look like more of the previous solution.

These kinds of questions are strange to me.

A great many people are using them voluntarily, a lot of people are using them because they don't know how to avoid using them and feel that they have no alternative.

But the implication of the question seems to be that people wouldn't choose to use something that is worse.

In order to make that assumption you have to first assume that they know qualitatively what is better and what is worse, that they have the appropriate skills or opportunity necessary to choose to opt in or opt out, and that they are making their decision on what tools to use based on which one is better or worse.

I don't think you can make any of those assumptions. In fact I think you can assume the opposite.

The average person doesn't know how to evaluate the quality of research information they receive on topics outside of their expertise.

The average person does not have the technical skills necessary to engage with non-AI augmented systems presuming they want to.

The average person does not choose their tools based on what is the most effective at producing the correct truth but instead on which one is the most usable, user friendly, convenient, generally accepted, and relatively inexpensive.

A lot of those things have a business model that relies on putting the competition out of business so you can jack up the price.

Uber broke taxis in a lot of places. It completely broke that industry by simply ignoring the laws. Uber had a thing that it could actually sell that people would buy.

It took years before it started making money, in an industry that already made money.

LLMs Don't even have a path to profitability unless they can either functionally replace a human job or at least reliably perform a useful task without human intervention.

They've burned all these billions and they still don't even have something that can function as well as the search engines that proceeded them no matter how much they want to force you to use it.

Every particle accelerator that has been built has paid for itself in research value. There's basically nothing that comes out of AI research except the need for a bigger model.

The comparison is poor. Particle accelerators are science, LLMs do not produce science.

That's not to say that we couldn't build LLMS that would be useful for scientific purposes but we're not. That is not the function or the goal of the people building these things.

I got these for about $200 each

You got to learn how to shuck those Western digital drives when they go on sale.

Charlie Kirk getting shot today probably will change the calculus on insurance for these kinds of events.

Also Republicans are such incredible chicken shits that they might all start driving around in Pope mobiles after this.

Literally on a boat using 'the implication'

Stupid is as stupid does.

Firefighters tend to be motivated to do good. The job doesn't attract many of the anti-social types you find in law-enforcement and politics that would be motivated to 'retalliate' or play favorites.

For better or worse, good people don't typically seek revenge and are not inclined to justify collateral damage (which is one of the chief risks of fire).

I don't even know what the hell this list is. Calling romancing the Stone in Indiana Jones knockoff is bizarre.

The volume of the power vacuum in the Republican party would likely be audible from Europe.