You state this as if the only way you personally would manage this would be to craft each line yourself after deep contemplation, which may be true for you.
But it's not a universal at all. You have to apply engineering thinking to human and LLM organization, and part of the damage caused by scrum has been to ignore this entirely. How can you produce a system where you can bound the output to be what is understood? It must be possible because managers all over the earth do it all the time.
But you shouldn't even want to, let alone need to.
People manage to be productive on computers without worrying about how the CPU is implemented. An absolutely astonishing proportion of programmers are included in that.
> But when you lead there’s a level of trust in the people who are going to implement.
"Trust but verify". This is why you have QA processes, testing, checklists etc. All the sanity checks that got thrown away in the web tech rush pre-AI.
The point is did the US reaction work or was it completely counter productive?
Then will attempting to cutoff China again today work or do we expect that also will prove to achieve the exact opposite of what its proponents are claiming?
It's the same patronizing nonsense as when all the US webcos pulled out of the Chinese market in some misguided supposed protest believing the Chinese so incapable of rolling their own Google, Amazon or WhatsApp they will come begging the americans to go back. Now the western tech universe goes to China for ideas.
If there are effectively only two AI companies allowed to train or run model inference then demand for hosting, GPUs and data centers goes down, so they'd be able to squeeze their suppliers that much more too.
The people struggling with this most are also the ones that never got to grips with human delegation either.
At least in my circle it's the classic leads/seniors (that predate the scrum "everyone's the same" thing) that are managing to get the most real mileage out of this.
I'd have way more sympathy for the world-model-term-misuse complaints if the ML world hadn't studiously ignored and then reinvented so many fields over the years.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06485 is enough to make any half decent game dev sit around wondering what was going on, as well as the general "maybe we're wasting a lot of space with all these floats?" At least now LLMs can tell them what SoTA is in other fields before they try to rediscover it.
> 1. App views decide permission parameters for their modality and frame the user experience
Yeah, so this is the problem. A system flexible enough for that will be some combination of centralized, hilariously over complicated, massively inefficient, and full of odd unexpected behaviors.
So in your concept if you are A and have two folowers B and C that don't know each other but both comment on your post what should happen? Should you see both but they not see each other?
This is the tip of the iceberg of boring questions that fall out, all of which have annoying user experience implications which are intimately tied to the underlying infrastructure and cryptosystems, effectively setting them in stone. There are reasons these systems fall into the camps of either federated with strong ID or really very centralized.
The main need is strong authentication, certainly for enabling P2P microblogging type apps.
The privacy stuff is covered by Signal etc. anyway, and you could layer that on top if you wanted to, but in a P2P setup privacy is always going to be a bit disappointing as so much metadata is inevitably exposed unless you do crazy stuff like flood fill the network with every message without regard to routing.
No, that's other people being concerned, it's not the people in the relationships that are concerned.
The position was "a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human" and quite clearly to some people it can, so the statement is false.
The problem isn't "Is this human or AI?" it's "Do we trust the entity with this identity or not?" meaning it's entirely possible to be anonymous but use a web-of-trust style system to promote/demote stories.
Part of the problem with that suggestion is everyone likes to tell everyone else who it is they should and shouldn't be trusting, so that dataset and acting on it would become a huge hot potato.
> Most people likely have a natural aversion against having "team members" without agency or consciousness. Giving them artificial, acted personalities would be even more horrible.
The problem isn't the team member being artificial or not, it's the obvious fakery of the personalities that is the problem, and that's entirely independent from the artificiality of the team member.
Technical staff are easiest to pin the blame on in any given situation. All those other fields require enormously more people skills and political inclination.
If you are in an org like that and there is an effort to pin something on technical people inappropriately the reaction when there's solid push back approaches total hysterical breakdown since it's so unexpected. Even if the tech staff "win" they'll be marked for the rest of their time there.
> AI has forced a dramatic shift in my view on intellectual property. The laws as they exist only protect corporations now.
Even this isn't quite right. Publishers unambiguously have been screwed.
What has happened is if you can give the political/investment classes enough upside opportunity in the entities doing the IP theft then you're golden, and they increasingly have no problem with even pretending to hide it.
Yeah. People should absolutely be _trying_ the Chinese models, and experimenting with running things locally, but the noise in development is genuinely all Claude and Codex.
I put my foot in the mobile comparison the other day, and will again. If you were to go back and be a mobile dev in 2010 by all means specialize on one platform, but play with both as a professional interest to stay realistic. Here it's important people have access to US/Chinese/Other, open/closed, local/cloud and that this remains. Don't become a blind Claude guy or a open weights fanatic: that way lies disappointment.