Don’t underestimate management desire to be absolutely indistinguishable from their competition.
They read the Harvard Business Review, learn new terms they don’t understanding, make a PowerPoint out of it and voila, they are “innovative” like everyone else.
If HBR put “AI” on its cover you can be damn sure all those innovators are going to put AI wherever they can.
I would love to, but we stiill use Windows specific software
If I had 1 cent every time I read that… and I pulled those cents together… and then paid software developers to build that missing software for other OSes like Linux… then we’d gradually see less of those comments.
It’s as if the isolation was the business model, proprietary software insuring that alternatives do not exist because users do not bother to get together and unstuck themselves from glowingly dangerous (security wise but probably even financially dependencies.
Hopefully initiatives like NLNet are precisely trying to alleviate such challenges. Until them compatibility layers like Proton are showing the way with arguably some of the most complex and demanding in terms of performance software, namely games.
Minority Report, the bad parts.
Edit: glad I’m using a deGoogled Android phone, can’t trust manufacturers not to enshitificate.
Hoping not getting crushed by SUVs while drivers are busy scrolling down their phone is so woke. /s
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Right, reminds me of the hacker mindset or more recently the workshop I did on “Future wheel foresight” with Karin Hannes. One can try their best to predict how an invention might be used but in practice it goes beyond what its inventors want it to be, it is truly about how what “it” does through actual usage.
very very little actual logic
To be precise, 0.
The business model IS dodging any kind of responsibility so… yeah, I think they’ll pass.
I agree and in fact I feel the same with AI.
Fundamental cryptocurrency is fascinating. It is mathematically sound, just like cryptography in general (computational complexity, one way functions, etc) and it had the theoretical potential to change existing political and economical structures. Unfortunately (arguably) the very foundation it is based on, namely mining for greed, brought a different community who inexorably modified not the technology itself but its usages. What was initially a potential infrastructure for exchange of value became a way to speculate, buy and sell goods and services banned, ransomware, scam payments, etc).
AI also is fascinating as a research fields. It asks deep question with complex answers. Research for centuries about it lead to not just interesting philosophical questions, like what it’s like to be think, to be human, and mathematics used in all walks of life, like in logistics for your parcel to get delivered this morning. Yet… gradually the field, or at least its commercialization, got captured by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, regulators, who main interest was greed. This in turn changed what was until then open to something closed, something small to something required gigantic infrastructure capturing resources hitherto used for farming, polluting due to lack of proper permit for temporary electricity sources, etc. The pinnacle right now being regulation to ban regulation on AI in the US.
So… yes, technology itself can be fascinating, useful, even important and yet how we collectively, as a society, decide to use it remains what matters, the actual impact of an idea rather than its idealization.
Also makes me think of Jevons’s paradox (or the rebound effect) but for attention or even more broadly cognition.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing!
Of course it makes sense. In fact I believe I have a similar problem while cycling on a one way street for cars while cycling on the (non protected) bike lane of the opposite direction. I hate that street because very often cars do not move away… because they don’t look up. They are busy doing I don’t know what in their cars… probably because, if I understood the idea properly, they think it’s all fine, nobody “should” come from anywhere but behind them, so the “can” be “distracted”.
Well even a PWA still has to be developed and maintained.
As an adult, relatively big (1m85) who doesn’t randomly run across a street but rather use solely clearly marked zebras I sadly have to report that I had numerous encounter with cars at a very uncomfortable distance to my body, some even touching me (not an accident proper though). I did have of course the occasional wave saying “Oops, sorry I didn’t see you or care for slowing down, moving on!”. When I say occasional it’s probably once a month or more.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it’s slightly higher speed than around. Namely small streets around the park are 20km/h, that avenue is 50km/h. It is actually such a problem a red light has been installed 200m further. I assume that enough cars refused to yield so that this change was made.
This makes me believe that unfortunately, even though MOST drivers are indeed able to safely drive in “Main avenues with clear sidewalks” there is still a non negligible amount from my experience as a pedestrian who absolutely can not and are a danger for everyone, kids and adults alike.
That being said, you have the right to believe that few accidents are acceptable if it allows most people to keep such a certain speed.
What… next thing you know you’ll ask people to use reason. /s
Yep, and at that speed, 50km/h on an “empty” street INSIDE a city, that’s also the most “efficient” speed to avoid those pesky children bits getting stuck on your windchill were you to tackle one while checking your phone.
Apologies for the sarcasm but most drivers I encounter on a daily basis absolutely do not have the sustained concentration behind wheels to safely drive a 50km/h within actual cities.
let’s end the phrase “I’m stuck in traffic”.
I’m contributing to traffic? I’m doing my part joining the traffic?
So many tempting options highlighting our individual responsibility to the collective problem… yet none of them actually used. Ever. I wonder why. Surely it’s because of “others”!
FWIW I did try few LLMs locally too (cf my notes on the topic https://fabien.benetou.fr/Content/SelfHostingArtificialIntelligence ) but AFAIK that is only the top of the iceberg, that LLM has been trained before and that’s a significant part of the cost.
Despite the ecological costs?
Typically LLMs aren’t a problem with FOSS with licensing as pretty much anything and everything is free to use, remix, etc.
What is more of a problem is hallucinations, imagining using the wrong rm -rf ~/ command without understanding the consequence, but arguably that’s hard to predict. What will always be a problem though, no matter the model, is how much energy was put into it… so that, in fine, it makes the actual documentation and some issues on StackOverflow slightly more accessible because one can do semantic search rather than full text search. Does one really need to run billion parameters models in the cloud on a remote data center for that?
Depends how you learn and what are your goals but I can recommend :
… yet IMHO the real fun comes when you apply YOUR commands to YOUR files.
So yes, please do try in a safe sandbox first then when you want, when you are not rushed by a project start a terminal right there from the comfort of your desktop, then PLAY with your files after doing a backup. Trust me it won’t just be fun, it will be truly empowering.
When you get stuck, come back here and do ask.
That NLNet https://nlnet.nl/ funding FLOSS project.
There are also BlueHats in France showing how administration is using AND consequently funding FLOSS https://code.gouv.fr/en/bluehats/ by paying for sysadmin, feature dev, maintenance, etc.