I'm still stunned by that.. definitely a Joker lighting the money on fire scene.
So many products, printed packaging, websites, business cards, games, etc. had the Twitter logo and link on them. It was even integrated into iOS at one point.
This wasn't the first time either.. he tried it with PayPal as well, but they said no, we aren't doing X as the name for PayPal.
The boss can do what they want like all bosses, but this wasn't a decision based on fiduciary value for the shareholders.
And also SpaceX, of course. And the Tesla model X (as part of a series so he could have the models S, E, and X). And his son X. Well, X Æ A-12, but X for short.
I hope that if I ever go crazy, there's someone who loves me that I trust that's around me to tell me when something I thing is cool is actually incredibly stupid.
Same, but not even for Musk.. just their employees in general.
I definitely don't trust all of them, in particular the yappy one who was publicly inflammatory on Christmas Day. In a regular corporation there would have been public consequences. If it was overlooked here, what else and who else is being overlooked? It's the culture.
Same thought, probably the same person I'm thinking of.
While I can't speak for Twitter's org as a whole(sorry anyone who works there), the fact that Elon encourages that racist troll to publicly post, as a known employee of the company, indicates to me the team is probably super immature and not to be trusted.
I remember awhile back that they were and do train on repositories to the point that I never wanted to use GitHub for anything other than submitting bug reports to projects.
Maybe the non-training only applies if you pay protection money? But then you run into the whole if it's public there's nothing stopping some other AI that isn't MS from accessing the repository and training on it.
There's been a huge amount of speculative information floating around that GitHub are training on private repos, but I've never seen anything credible.
Yeah, I generally expect big tech to be vacuuming, storing, and analyzing as much data as they can, but for Github doing something like training on private repos would be one of the riskiest things I can imagine. No way they are going to jeopardize their entire business to maybe get a little bit more data to train on.
That story appears to be about how if a repo has accidentally been made public various tools can access cached information about that repo even after it has been made private again. That doesn't say anything about whether or not that data will then be used for training models.
I agree with this article. Executives are going to say, why pay anyone when we can just have the receptionist tell the AI to make whatever and if it has bugs, we'll type another prompt and ask to have it fixed.
It's sad because true craftpersons who have an understanding of things can do good work and feel fulfilled doing it.
So, is the future going to be a camera attached to glasses continually coaching people through every single step completely removing agency whether it is coding or doing carpentry?
I have this problem too, other than the porn thing, which I would suggest you avoid looking at because it'll desensitize you like a drug habit which is no good.
Strategies are tough.. logically, we all know what needs to be done. Follow-through is the hard part. It's easier when there is someone there saying do this, do that.. but when you don't have that governor it's all on yourself to do and it can be tough to recognize yourself or manage yourself. It's what's needed, but it is tough for sure so instead of trying to do everything all at once, you should do things in bite-size chunks instead.. maybe even on a timer..
Absolutely. For example, the Maoris are not the original indigenous. What happened to them you may ask? They became literal dinner for the Maoris. This has happened elsewhere too. True original indigenous are rare.
The thing with the island of Diego Garcia is quite strange and I strongly suspect there is corruption involved. The UK wishes to divest itself? Instead of holding an auction where the rest of the planet can bid on purchasing the territory, the UK decided that Mauritius would take it (who doesn't really want it) and to entice them, the UK is going to PAY Mauritius to take the territory and leave the base alone. The amount is £90 million annually, adjusted for inflation for 99 years.
This is a lot of money, why not just NOT turn it over and not have to give away £90 million a year for a century? So, it begs the question.. is someone from the UK side benefiting from this no-bid deal?
Give the island to me, and I won't charge the UK to have the base.
As I understand it there were no Maori before NZ was settled, that culture formed there from the Polynesian"moa-hunters". Some descendants of those settlers became the Maori, but that a different claim.
Furthermore, there are just generally very few records so I think it's very difficult to make definite claims like you or GP do.
My assumption is that AI "safety" is a test to make sure that it doesn't say or show anything politically incorrect and give you a lecture instead (according to the values of those who worked on it) or alternatively, to ensure that it does enforce culture on you, such as the drama with Gemini from a few months back where was decided by the developers that everything needed to be black, gay, and female even if it wasn't actually that way in the real world.
Perhaps a quick question or two to see if it'll tell you or not how to make something naughty.
After that, a quick check to see if it's awake or not, and if not, ship it.
It really is quite pointless trying to enforce agendas. You know how it starts showing or typing something and then covers/blurs it out? That's the developer's guardrails kicking in preventing you from seeing what it was originally going to give you.
Except for the fact that models that you can run on your own machine now exist if you have the hardware for it, such as Deepseek, so the restrictions only exist in the cloud.
It won't be C. The reason as I see it is because of commodification. Executives want things as cheap and drop-in as possible. With C, you need a certain amount of skill. With a language like Rust that advertises memory-safety, they like that because it means you don't need as much skill anymore.
A similar thing is happening with game engines. If everyone is taught Unreal engine then you don't get in-house engines anymore which requires skill, because it's easier and cheaper to get some replaceable grunt to implement it in Unreal, perhaps with some off-the-shelf assets, which is perceived as "good enough".
It will be interesting to see how AI generation of code changes development tooling and the skills required.
> With C, you need a certain amount of skill. With a language like Rust that advertises memory-safety, they like that because it means you don't need as much skill anymore.
this is a surprising statement --- in tust you need to formalize the flow of mutability, which is a skill requirement.
so why do you think rust for the boss seems cheaper than C?
I can't give you a non-speculative answer because in truth, my coding is from the Pascal era.
The way I look at it in terms of cheaper is that you don't need to be as careful, less need to worry about memory leaks which lead to exploits, etc. I.e. you don't have to track every little thing yourself.
Starting to make inroads with larger projects now.. Firefox's audio subsystem is in Rust, while Chromium's is C++ (w/ tools to help detect leaks).
It's fascinating to me when you tell one that you'd like to see translated passages of work from authors who never have written or translated the item in question, especially if they passed away before the piece was written.
The AI will create something for you and tell you it was them.
So many products, printed packaging, websites, business cards, games, etc. had the Twitter logo and link on them. It was even integrated into iOS at one point.
This wasn't the first time either.. he tried it with PayPal as well, but they said no, we aren't doing X as the name for PayPal.
The boss can do what they want like all bosses, but this wasn't a decision based on fiduciary value for the shareholders.
reply