There are infinitely many hard things. It is hard to learn Japanese. We don't require that every high school student attain basic proficiency in it though.
The reason we learn calculus in high school is because it is foundational for many advanced STEM fields, and we will yield better results during university for the small percentage of students who go into those fields by forcing everyone to learn it in high school. Or, moreso, that's a viable justification for learning it today. Had history taken a different shape maybe we would learn something else, or maybe not. But the point is that calculus is not an arbitrary hard thing we learn for arbitrary reasons.
How does a kid know that they definitely will/will not be going into a STEM field in the future? Is it better to have your school-going years slightly marred by calculus and not particularly need it after, or want to go into STEM later in life but not have the grounding necessary?
> and we will yield better results during university for the small percentage of students who go into those fields by forcing everyone to learn it in high school
The regulation will never change, but you get a huge advantage by working with smaller processors in terms of them being willing to work with you in a reasonable way.
There are 3 stages:
You are small: Stripe and the like work best because they are easy to set up and your small payments are low risk
Your are medium sized: You start to hit restrictions with these services but can not get any real support. You should work with a small indie processor.
You are big: You can get support (probably) so going with the big powerful solutions starts to make more sense again.
> and someone finally bothered to look at the proof and it was a blank page.
I think I agree more than not with your worldview, but it seems like in this case this was the first time the person tried to improperly use the system... and he was caught and is now being sentenced. So I would say this is an example of the system "working".
I'm sure there are civil rights abuses that happen much more frequently, which we don't here about, but this specific incident seems like something that should be cheered.
According to the second sentence of the article, the officer tracked multiple people and their locations. He clearly wasn't caught the first time he used the tool inappropriately because he was found guilty of using it illegally multiple times.
The officer very clearly was not forthcoming with the investigation, judging from him falsifying documents after the investigation started. So he may have other undetected crimes.
In fact, the only fair conclusion I think you can draw is that some officer(s) use the tool inappropriately. Because it's not clear if all uses are audited, or this officer was found on a random check. But in my opinion saying "the system worked" is inappropriate given the lack of data.
Is this some kind of parody? He got caught because it was a literal blank piece of paper. Anyone with any sense would write some bullshit paragraph and I'm sure plenty did and got away with it.
> a company can simply get the weights for free and sell them.
This is the flaw in your logic. If the weights are freely available, they can not be sold for much value. That will in turn mean there is no "another OpenAI", because the core product, AI, will basically be freely available.
If that's the case then we might as well short the stock of all the public cloud companies who repackage and sell Open Source software. Why use RDS when PostreSQL is open source?
Well, I am arguing basically that basically AI APIs would be much more prone to commodification. There would still be companies, of course, but probably not with value on FAANG scale etc...
Certainty it would be easier to set up an API for a given model than providing what RDS does, to borrow from your example.
Because RDS comes with infra to support the software. This is what many want from their ai weights too. For it to come with infra to support the deployment of apps that use the weights.
Having the weights on their own doesn't mean anyone can have their own OpenAI any more than having a core Google index snapshot would mean anyone can spin their own Google.
Love to see an ad for "Learn the Future of Marketing and Unleash the Power of AI" as I read a piece on how Meta has supposedly forsaken the true gritty down to earth spirit of the internet.
"returns 42"