Physically can they? Sure. But there’s costs associated with that too. They’re clearly not hugely concerned with developer relations right now, but an ever changing “public” api certainly can annoy and drive off your developers in a way that a private and non existent api won’t. Likewise there’s an argument to be made that a constantly changing public API is also anti-competitive. If every iOS release winds up with breaking changes that force developers to update their devices and kill off devices that aren’t being updated anymore is that really any better than a private API? We already see a lot of anger over Apple dropping 32 bit libraries or how quickly they drop developer support for older OS versions and “force” developers to keep making updates to stay current on their public APIs.
:-) Just to be clear: Referring to Douglas Adams here, who obviously meant that as satire. [1]
Of course the serious core here is this: It's assumed here that it would be a trivial matter to be able to see who is adding value and who isn't. I would question that assumption.
This is actually an emerging scam. Those pushing the idea that these AI systems are "thinking" always have something to sell you to believe the lie.
The reality is, they generate as much plausible-looking responses to the untrained eye, only for any domain expert to verify that it produced nonsense (with the wrong citations).
Again, the ones spreading the AI hype are giving vacuous predictions of a utopian future with UBI, no more humans working which is being repeated by those fully invested in the AI race when the reality is the exact opposite and will try to use it as an excuse to displace your job.
It is a giant scam that is being allowed to happen, Why?
Because they are directly invested in it; including Elon, Sam and all the private investors you already know about who won't say the truth.
A few things: we also put lots of effort into preventing mass casualty attacks in public places around the world (except the US govt in primary schools, for unfortunate three letter political reasons that begin with N and end with A). We generally don't want people to blow up planes because they're super expensive (even if we discount the lives of the passengers). Terrorists prefer blowing up aircraft to other things. When planes crash, they often hit people on the ground. And so on...
This is wrong on many levels. There isn’t much effort put into preventing those kind of attacks outside of really dense venues like stadiums.
Train and subway stations rarely have more than one or two armed officers if they have any at all.
Train tracks have shockingly little protection to prevent timed derailment sabotage. Buildings have little protection from being surrounded by accelerants and set on fire, etc.
There is a strange subset of things terrorists seem to want to do and society doesn’t do much to prevent the rest.
I'm not sure that's relevant or comparable when there's no baseline for what terrorist means.
There are lots of reasons people bomb cars. I would bet most of those organizations (1+ individuals) would prefer to blow up planes full of specific targets over specific targets.
>When planes crash, they often hit people on the ground
Do they? Other than 9/11, I'm personally unaware of this ever happening. 20 seconds searching says there was an airplane that crashed into a DC bridge in the 80's killing 4 motorists, and a couple of similar incidents, but it seems rare.
> Terrorists prefer blowing up aircraft to other things
Seems to me a lot of terrorist attacks are blowing up buildings or driving vehicles into crowds or bombs in crowds or stuff like that. Not a ton of blowing up planes in transit in the overall list of terrorist attacks.
That's like imagining school shooters won't get an AR-15 and do a school shooting because you put an otherwise unarmed guy with a baton by the front gate.
reply