Fun read! I think a closed fist with seven fingers would have been a better illustration tough…

if you’re far enough to the right apparently everyone looks like a Marxist. Even Hitler was a National Socialist (Socialist!)

Sometimes I get the nice version of that. In my dreams I am not trying to get down and I can just sort of silde where I want. It’s a pleasant feeling!

Look, it’s statistically possible that the flight attendant is just a piece of s##t.

But, having been friends with one, I’m also open to the possibility that they just know they are going to be sealed in a flying can with a lot of nervous people and just want to go through a whole f###ng flight without someone getting triggered or panicking.

The poor guy has been misunderstood, he wasn’t trying to insult Trump. After Slytherin was renamed to “Hogwarth MAGAs” he has been sent to shield Trump from harm with his “Protecto Pedophilus” spell.

Me: so rarely that I keep forgetting it’s a touch screen

My wife and daughter: constantly, so my screen is full of their fingerprints

I think that’s so type inference can work by just omitting the type, instead of having to use “var” or “auto” in front of the variable name

I think the EU are just trying to get some of the money quickly before Google spends all of it on AI

Not to be anti-AI, but… AI coding stats from a AI coding company are as trustworthy as studies from Marlboro on the health effects of smoking or from Volkswagen on car emissions.

I mean, it would still make more sense than SpaceX + xAI. Unlike a data center, a Tesla did actually go to space

There’s a financial bubble and a mental bubble. They are related and feed each other but they are not the same and might not blow up at the same time.

The Market, according to the article, isn’t losing its faith in AI as the Ultimate Technology (the mental bubble or “AI psychosis”). It’s just questioning its belief that one or two companies might be able to squeeze massive profits out of it (the financial bubble).

Investors thought one AI winner would emerge relatively quickly, a new SuperGoogle or HyperAmazon that would make all the money in the world by providing access to AI to every other company. The AI winner would then gleefully enshittify their product while making it more expensive over time, eventually turning huge profits (even including the Trillions of investment spent to get there).

Now, with multiple companies that are offering an almost equivalent product and are forced to compete on price while already bleeding billions every quarter, everyone might just run out of money before the winner is declared. Not a scenario many are willing to invest in.

But the idea that AI can do everyone’s job or give anyone 100x superpowers will still be out there. And all the CEOs and CTOs who thought they would look like thought leaders if they bet everything on AI will not easily change their minds all at once. They will still be easy marks for the next snake oil salesman, selling them a product based on cheap, less powerful models or whatever they can insist can still perform the 100x miracle at an actually bearable cost.

Some might actually be useful products, it’s just that if the mental bubble, overinflating what AI can do doesn’t blow, they can still be sold way above their actual worth.

they are hiring more, so they can reach their layoff targets

almost the same: “the ding-dong is dead”

Elon Musk Is Charging Starlink Customers Gigantic Bogus Fees Because Its Network Is Being Crushed by [Musk’s] “High Demand” for more money

FTFY

He inhabits a 80-year-old, badly abused and decomposing body and he doesn’t care about anybody else including his own family. “Sustainable” is probably not what he’s going for at this point (if it ever was).

That’s SpaSex. Porn in natural spas on Mars. Very short videos because they usually die after a few seconds but good enough for me (I don’t last that long either).

I want to believe this is true, so they won my click, but “I heard that some executives and even one unnamed CEO…” is a really low quality article

I hadn’t thought about this, thanks. Personally, if the messaging had been “play with this new thing, see where it helps, report where it doesn’t or where it’s actively harmful”, I would have had a much better time with it. The fact that it was “use AI for everything or else you’ll lose your job to someone else who does” created all sort of perverse incentives to use it for the sake of using it (even where it doesn’t make sense), to lie about the results and to generate more anxiety in others to keep up with your made-up achievements. I think at least some of the wasteful or even harmful ways you describe of using LLMs come from this push to use it and “be more productive” with it.

But you’re right that there are people who became overly reliant and even ruined their lives with LLMs without the tech being forced on them.

I am not a CEO and I hope this AI bubble bursts already.

That said, if I were a CEO using all possible tokens while they are heavily subsidized and tightening the purse when they get more expensive does not sound like the worst strategy to me. You get all your teams to build some expertise and (hopefully) get a sense of where the technology might have some ROI.

If only they had presented it this way (and not “AI therefore layoffs”) probably a lot of us would hate it much less now.

To be fair, the prompt was “what shade of gold should the curtains be in my new ballroom?”

[ Reasoning… The user wants me to initiate a war with Iran… Firing 2000 missiles on random objectives… Done. Back to undressing kids on X… ]