"they can do that because there's plenty of articles on the web on how that shit works along with all the technical documentation, and we have blog posts explaining how to apply the technical tools to the domain."
Does this imply the future of LLMs is either that they acquire reasoning, or that they (or even engineering itself?) reach a plateau if humans are no longer writing about how to do things because the humans are using AI?
All "capitalist" economies have very large amounts of central planning for them to function (not to mention state subsidies and other protections from failing to make money), and use taxation and the national debt for that. Socialism plans centrally to the same extent that capitalist economies do, but also has the state owning the infrastructure that the economy relies upon. So it doesn't need to tax for that purpose. Socialism in that sense has never actually been practiced historically though, in the same way as there has never been "capitalism" in the sense of no central planning or regulation. Luckily.
My understanding on China's coal plants is that it's not the number of them, it's whether they're running that counts. Coal-fired generation is currently cheaper than storage for backing up wind and solar generation and their plants are typically running about 50% of the time right now, expected to run less often as storage and more renewables come online. So China’s coal use could fall despite it adding more capacity.
If (and it's a big if) the human race survives to deal with the effects of climate change, the next great battle will be to prevent waste from becoming the existential problem.
I used to naively think that some kind of PKI/trust network for online media would have to rise up to thwart misinformation.
But anger is the real the reason why people want to believe obviously fake info about how Mexicans are manipulating the weather. We live in a society that tells you that you are free: freedom to work hard, treat people right and do the right thing. Then health, wealth and happiness will be yours.
But what if you do all those things and see the opposite happening to you and those around you? You want reasons. 5G brain control, Bill Gates and the Deep State all look like great explanations because long arcs of neoliberal monetarism and deregulated economics is, well, boring and quite hard to understand. So who cares about some AI fakery when that's going on?
Not downloaded that app, but does it deliver exactly the same features as the web app but just look a bit different? If so, I wonder whether anyone working in the respective web and app departments sometimes wonders why their company maintains two separate apps that do the same thing. I know I did.
The weird thing is that companies will pay for entirely separate engineering, product and marketing departments for their apps which duplicate their web apps in every way (or usually a bit less), not to mention being under the thumb of the app stores - all for the sake of notifications.
I'm no bean-counter, but that seems very odd to me.
Issues are a mess because they get used like bulletin boards for any random brain fart anyone has, despite Issue Templates trying to plead otherwise.
IMO the way to fix this is to gestate all issues in Discussions. Then, when a clear and agreed resolution is hammered out there, a maintainer creates an Issue (or just does a PR) referencing that Discussion. This would have the side effect of encouraging people to contribute to projects more when they can clearly see what needs picking up.
Element is a great example with well over 3,000 open issues, most of which would be far better worked out in Discussions from which the maintainers could raise issues or PRs from whatever the outcome of the conversation was (if any). But they don't have Discussions because...
Yes, we've got that and it does help a bit. But we're often forced to be heavy-handed and just close junk issues with a comment asking the poster to open a Discussions thread. I feel bad about doing that though as it's hard not to come across as unfriendly.
If Issues could be restricted to repo maintainers (with everyone else using Discussions), it would make contributing to F/LOSS projects far easier because you could easily see what the team was "thinking" (PR lists aren't like that).
As it is, most Issues are polluted by random support requests, suggestions and open-ended chat which obscures the focus so much that sometimes I just can't tell what they need help with, so I don't bother offering.
I have no interest in the Jirafication of Issue though. None at all.
> That changed this year and they're now building some very large battery farms and i invasive their coal builds will drop.
This is an under-considered point: just because energy sources like coal or solar, etc. are being installed NOW doesn't mean they will be there forever. Here in the UK, there is often a lot of opposition to solar and wind farms. But I would expect those eventually to be phased out in the same way as coal once better/cheaper forms of generation come along.
I see - I got the impression that the 70-80's was a sort of dark age for beer in the UK, with mass-produced low-quality stuff from the likes of Watneys and Carslberg etc. taking over, which CAMRA was a reaction against.
When was this? I was up in TVC (and later in that newer building up the road from it) in 1996 prototyping the BBC News Online publishing system with Fujitsu ICL. Didn't meet anyone from the Ceefax team though.
Does this imply the future of LLMs is either that they acquire reasoning, or that they (or even engineering itself?) reach a plateau if humans are no longer writing about how to do things because the humans are using AI?