It's quite bad at role play in my (rather large) experience.
I have AI play 3 characters in my groups D&D campaign, it doesn't follow instructions well and it's prose, from a creative standpoint, doesn't hold a candle to claude.
Projects that deny AI contribution will simply disappear when an agent can reproduce their entire tech stack in a single prompt within a couple years. (not there yet, but the writing is on the wall at this point).
Whatever the right response to that future is, this feels like the way of the ostrich.
I fully support the right of maintainers to set standards and hold contributors to them, but this whole crusader against AI contribution just feels performative, at this point, almost pathetic. The final stand of yet another class of artisans to watch their craft be taken over by machines, and we won't be the last.
I do not think LLMs optimize for 'engagement', corporations do, but LLMs optimize on statistical convergence, I don't find that that results in engagement focus, your opinion my vary. It seems like LLM 'motivations' are whatever one writer feels they need to be to make a point.
I have problem pulled out postgres 10 or more times for various projects at work. Each time I had to fight for it, each time I won, it did absolute everything I needed it to do and did it well.
I don't understand these posts. Do people not understand how venture capital works?
The majority of these companies know they are burning money, but more than that knew they would be losing money at this point and beyond. That is the play, the thesis is: AI will dominate nearly everything in the near future, the play is to own a piece of that. Investors are willing to risk their investment for a chance of getting a piece of the pie.
Posts that flail around yelling companies 'losing money', without addressing the central premise are just wasting words.
In short, do you think AI is not going to dominate nearly everything? Great, talk about that. If you do believe is, then talk about something other than the completely reasonable and expected state of investors and companies fighting for a piece of the pie.
As a somewhat related tangent, people seem to not understand the likely cost trajectory of model training/inference costs:
* Models will reach a 'good enough' point where further training will be mostly focused on adding recent data. (For specific market segments, not saying that we'll have a universal model anytime soon, but we'll soon have one that is 'good enough' at c++, might already be there).
* Model architecture and infrastructure will improve and adapt. I work for a company that was among the first use deep learning to control real-time kinetic processes in production scenarios, our first production hardware was a nvidia Jetson, we had a 200ms time budget for inference, and our first model took over 2000! We released our product, running under 200ms, *using the same hardware* the only difference was improvements in the cuDNN library and some other drive updates and some domain specific improves on our YOLO implementation. Long story short, yes inference costs are huge, but they are also massively disruptable.
* Hardware will adapt. Nvidia cash machine will continue, right now nvidia hardware is optimized for balance between training and inference, where TPUs, the newer ones are more tilted towards inference. I would be surprized if other hardware companies don't force Nvidia to give the more inference based solution and 2-3x cost savings at time point in the next 5 years. And for all I know, perhaps a hardware startup will disrupt Nvidia, it would be one of the most lucrative hardware plays on the planet.
Focusing inference cost is a deadend to understanding the trajectory of AI, understanding the *capability* of AI is the answer to understanding it's place in the future.
My buddy was absolutely delighted by Sunshine+Moonlight and basically forced me to try it. Long story short, it is not nearly as responsive for dev tasks, amazing for gamings or streaming, however.
> Some people might not enjoy writing their own code. If that’s the case, as harsh as it may seem, I would say that they’re trying to work in a field that isn’t for them
Conversely: Some people want to insist that writing code 10x slower is the right way to do things, that horses were always better, more dependable than cares, and that nobody would want to step into one of those flying monstrosities. And they may also find that they are no longer in the right field.
Current US Administration: How dare request security guarantees and point out Russia breaks their word more often then not!
Average US Administration supporter: The US didn't give Ukraine security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum, how dumb of Ukraine to give up a trillion dollars of Nuclear weapons for literally nothing! Also, it was Russia that broke their word, not us!
Also, Russia has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, repeatedly. By claiming Ukrainian soil as theirs, then claiming they would defend "their" land, aka, Ukraine, with nukes. Even going so far as to use ballistic missiles that are only useful as nuclear weapon carriers due to their cost and low accuracy on normal bombardment of Ukraine's cities to create doubt on the Ukraine side whether the next Russian salvo against their cities and civilian population, will be a nuclear one.
That is incorrect, standard Single-issue tunnel vision (which is very much promoted by Russian propaganda).
NATO, with America leading, gave the world the longest stretch of relative peace it has ever seen. The next 80 years will not be the same, if we even survive it. Every major power will have to be nuclear, and every smaller power will be moving to it.
Invasion of sovereign countries and Imperialism is going to spike. You think the world is just going to watch Russia invade and conquer a sovereign democratic nation and get away Scott-free and not want to do the same?
Frankly, the true propaganda win of Russia wasn't with the red side, they were always easy to influence, but with their splitting of the blue side, carving off great sections of it into purity-testing irrelevancy.