Well yeah fuck that guy and this program and it's implications, but this particular issue doesn't sound too unexpected considering the scope of the procedure.
I'm all for the science, but you know this is going to be some directly streamed ads hellspace we'll never escape from if it comes to fruition.
Here's a good rule for this sort of thing to move forward: No implants before right to privacy and freedom from advertising.
Honestly I agree. I don't think Elon Musk has demonstrated the good judgement that means a company he's in charge of should be in there fuckin with people's brains, but reading the article it sounds pretty frickin cool what they're doing. I hope it works out and good things come out of it.
I'm the kind of person who reads the source code of software I'm using at least some of the time (and modifies it on occasion), but I'm no genius and not qualified to notice a well-hidden backdoor or potentially fatal software bug - let alone issues with the design, construction or implantation of the hardware. I would never ever trust a brain implant or any device that interfaces directly with my brain.
I'd prefer no implants ever if I can help it. I'd only be fine with one if it saved my life. Otherwise, there are just too many things that can go wrong with it in ways our current technology can't. You can go off-grid now if you get sick of tech, but that becomes infinitely harder if you have a chip in your brain
Stupidity at its finest. The whole point of cheap 3rd party apple accessories is to use workarounds to get past apple DRMs and use them without paying the apple tax.
Blame apple foremost for creating such a market in the 1st place. You don't need such workarounds in other phones because they just work.
Seriously... The closer to three edge we get, the faster enshitification goes. No one is writing algorithms with users in mind... Not for a paycheck anyways
We're getting to the point where we all need to carve out bubbles of curated Internet for our friends and family
Nah, I'm thinking much bigger. I've got an AI that can transcribe video, I'm working on one to summarize and put facts into a knowledge graph, I've got one that can hold a conversation, and I've got a script that scrapes sites and does natural language processing. I just need an agent to tie the pieces together and some control scripts to manage the containerized pieces
The idea is, my assistant will go out, read up on programming topics and build knowledge graphs with references to the source, and I'll fix my biggest issue - shittified searches crippling my work speed
Then, I'll send it off to find content. It'll transcribe/summarize videos and rank them, research topics and come back with reports, and trawl my socials to find new things I might find interesting
I plan to take all that, then let my assistant create video channels to watch and additional content to read if Lemmy is slow. And if my friends and family show interest, I'll add in hosting and an internal social media and convince them to run additional nodes at home
I've been working on it for a while because I saw this coming, I've got most of the key pieces already.
And that's the bubble of Internet I'm building - AI curation of my Internet life, it'll happily work away the hours deshittifying a bubble of Internet
The judge found that X Corp's argument exposed a tension between the platform's desire to control user data while also enjoying the safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows X to avoid liability for third-party content. If X owned the data, it could perhaps argue it has exclusive rights to control the data, but then it wouldn't have safe harbor.
"X Corp. wants it both ways: to keep its safe harbors yet exercise a copyright owner’s right to exclude, wresting fees from those who wish to extract and copy X users’ content," Alsup wrote.
Seems like a sound judgement. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Elon Musk wants to own the data, he must also be liable for it.
I think more likely answer is that most businesses are cheap and a mediocre image generated by AI is good enough vs paying a human to make a really good one.
Nah, I've just been in the industry long enough to not be scared of competition. Quality is something that a lot of well-paying businesses very much appreciate.
A crappy visual generator is on-par with an intern, at best.
The people who are startled the most, probably have never actually done design large-scale.
Classic "fuck you got mine" take from someone who has experienced no difficulty in decades with a field. If you're ignoring the mass layoffs happening across multiple fields right now, ESPECIALLY in well-performing companies, I guess it looks like AI is not having much of an effect. Like if you consciously decide to not look at any business news at all this take could make sense.
My dude, I'm literally replying to a person who said "rip graphics designers". Of course I'm talking about my on field.
BTW, I have no problem with "fuck around and find out". Fuck those companies layinf off people because of LLMs. I'll watch them go down with a grin on my face and balls in my hand.
This is something people always miss in these discussions. A graphic designer working for a medium marketing company is replaceable with a Stable Diffusion or Midjourney, because there, quality is not really that important. They work on quantity and "AI" is much more "efficient" in creating the quantity. That too even without paying for stock photos.
High end jobs will always be there in every profession. But the vast majority of the jobs in a sector do not belong to the "high end" category. That is where the job loss is going to happen. Not for Beeple Crap level artists.
I would question the efficiency claim. Uber and the like claimed incredible market dominance, driving local food delivery and taxi services out of business. They're only now really being forced to find profitability.
I wonder if AI is going to be similar. The powerful models right now, as I understand it, have ludicrous power requirements. I don't know their balance sheets, but in the current race to market share, I'm skeptical that most of these services are in the green.
What that ultimately says about the future I don't really know. Like it could be we reach some point where the models get better, or more specialized, or something and profit arrive. Or maybe theres a point of diminishing returns where the profit just can't be made, and once the hype falls off (and investors stop clamoring for AI) these companies will ask what they're getting for the money spent.
(And of course I could just be straight up wrong about profits today not being there.)
Replacing a human with any form of tech has been a long standing practice. Usually in this scenario the profitability or the efficiency takes a known pattern. Unfortunately what you said is the exact way the market always operated in the past, and will be operating in the future.
The general pattern is a new tech is invented or a new opportunity is identified, then a bunch of companies get into the market as competing entities. They offer competing prices to customers in an attempt to gain market dominance.
But the problem starts when low profit drives some companies to a situation where either they have to go bust or dissolve the wing, or sell the company to a competitor. Usually after this point a dominant company will emerge in a market segment. Then the monopolies are created. After this point companies either increase the price or exploit customers to get more money, and thereby start making profits. This has been the exact pattern in tech industries for several decades.
In the case of AI also, this is why companies are racing to capture market dominance. Early adopters always get a small advantage and help them get prominence in the segment.
They are absolutely eating the real costs in order to gain market share. I suspect that there's going to be a mad dash to rehire humans when the bill comes due and the VCs want profits.
You can only cut out so many people in so many industries before the economy collapses. I'd like to see what it would look like if like 30% of people lost their careers to AI. Maybe there would finally be a push for UBI and/or stronger tax laws for large corporations.
Most clients don't understand art or graphics to begin with, I guess.
That means shit prompts and shit visuals.
They just wanted someone good at Illustrator.
Well, that's where the "not very good at graphics design" comes in. If you're only hired because "you know illustrator", that says more about you than the client.
WTF, no, this is worse in every way. So instead of being involved with the people and topics I choose, it's instead left up to an algorithm? Somehow even more opaque than usual because of AI involvement.
This isn't solving any problem, this is yet another mask to push content in front of people.
Does that mean they're prepping to sell to Elon Musk at well above market value only to get enshitified? It's not clear to me what's mandatory after you fire JD...
"I'll never forget the sweet romantic words he said to me last night: 'As a learning language model, I am unable to comprehend what the feeling love is. Here is a list of love songs from Wikipedia.'"
They have 2 robots so far. I believe they can make it to 5 by next year and the other 995 will just be people in spandex suits like the first time he announced these things
This is the same guy who said full auto driving out of beta in 2 years 10 years ago and that we're going to be living in Mars in 2. Skeptical is an understatement
When this news dropped a little while ago. I saw a lot of speculation that basically Elon got mad that a woman said he was wrong and laid off possibly Tesla's biggest asset in a tantrum.
Honestly, at this point, the most surprising part of this situation is how unsurprised I am at that being exactly what happened.
Hopefully, this will not set back a widespread EV charging network (Tesla or otherwise) too much; but it definitely sounds like damage has been done.
Hopefully this knocks down Tesla's dominance in the charger ecosystem honestly, we need competition to take over that aren't tied to a single vehicle manufacturer. Yes Tesla was going to open their network up to third party cars but they're taking their sweet time in doing so. I hope competitors were able to swoop in and hire talent and take over broken contracts on abandoned charging station projects.
Honestly, that's my main hope as well; that all the charging team talent will disperse across the market and help other chargers spread as well. The article mentioned Tesla having 60% of the fast charger market, so hopefully we will see other companies fill the gap.
My concern is that if no companies pick up the ball Tesla just dropped (or more accurately angrily chucked over the fence), that this could set the EV charging network back significantly; which would definitely be a problem for mass adoption of EVs.
I've really been waiting for gas stations to jump in on this. Tying it to vehicle manufacturers just doesn't make that much sense to me, not nearly as much sense as using the companies whose mission is already to deliver energy to vehicles. You need a tiny fraction of the infra for electric charging that you need to supply gas. Shell or Chevron could EASILY ink deals with, say, Starbucks, to put one or two chargers in every Starbucks parking lot in the country and just sit back and laugh as the money rolls in. And yet, they just keep pushing for exclusively fossil fuels.
I would love to see gas stations putting in EV chargers, especially gas stations known for their food and snacks or travel stops that have restaurants because of the additional time taken to charge an EV vs. fill a gas car. Also it would be nice to see established companies run EV chargers that just let you pay with card at the "pump" like you do for gas rather than this app and account bullshit that all the mainstream networks have.
You have to keep in mind the scenarios where it will be used. While truly fast charging does exist today (20 minutes or so for 80% charge), that is not widespread, nor is that the way it's typically done. Level 3 (DC fast charging) is expensive (moreso than gas), potentially detrimental to the battery, and still usually not very fast (an hour at least). As such, you aren't going to charge at your local gas station the same way you get a fill up today.
Most people use a level 2 charger, either at home or at work. This means it can sit for 8 hours to refuel. Many parking garages have this as well. Level 2 chargers deliver AC directly to the vehicle, meaning you don't need a lot of infrastructure- just a 240v line and a billing system. This in turn means it's cheap and relatively easy to install. Sometimes you'll see these outside of Starbucks or a grocery store, but not especially often. You'll get ~25 miles of range per hour charging using level 2. But even if you spend 2 hours drinking coffee, or buying groceries, you've only added 50 miles of range.
This is where level 3 comes in. It requires some pretty significant equipment (which is part of why they're always broken), because it has to convert AC into high voltage DC. It also has to chill the cables internally, otherwise they'd quickly overheat from the electricity passing through. But this takes up space that's probably not really available in the lot.
I am seeing fast chargers now being installed at travel centers/truck stops along major highways. It fits in nicely with regular stops on a road trip for food. I'm also seeing them being installed at most Walmarts, since that's perfect for grocery shopping.
Around here, that last group has been from Electrify America, which does NOT require an app. They have a standard credit card reader.
Fortunately the NACS has be standardized under the SAE as J3400, so companies should not have to rely on Tesla for development or implementation anymore. Tesla's network is going to suffer for sure though.
We currently have a stacked roster thanks to those mandates. Even more hilarious is that we are helping three clients who's projects are currently underwater because they lost key staff thanks to return-to-office mandates. We are not a staffing agency, we are a highly specialized firm, so right now they are paying six times the cost for specialists to do what they used to do with in-house staff. Funnier still, we have been a 100% remote work firm since 2012, so ultimately the office is still empty. SMH
Or he is trying to get ahead of some news. Maybe a journalist contacted him about some serious allegations. So now he joins up with Musk, comes out against the 'woke agenda' and when the news releases, he can claim its main stream media silencing him.
Yes, but a long ass time ago. What's happening here is that he's not getting his way over something, or he's gone and done something that we haven't heard about that will stain the company and he was removed, or he was told his farts still smelled, and he threw a tantrum.
This has all of the hallmarks of a billionaire baby being told "no" over something for the first time in a while.
I'm seriously wondering. All these billionaire types seem to be getting a taste for attention and can't help shouting crazy bullshit at the top of their lungs. The louder these people are, the more scrutiny they will receive. Do they believe that will end well for them?
Technology
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).