I mean, with the announced productivity gains of generative AI... It doesn't feel like a big ask. 😜

Interesting point... Didn't think about it this way. We'll see I guess. Maybe human made services will actually get a premium rate indeed. Wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess?

This is a fact I don't get... people are going their way to satisfy the need of a LLM but not the ones of fellow humans. I guess it's the conclusion which is somewhat right, it's about who has power. This is sad if true... also I doubt it's the single explanation.

Or why most of the studies we see out there can't be trusted. They're full of holes and flaws. We'd really know people who know what they do in humanities to conduct such studies to get a chance at a proper picture.

Ultimately, they just want people to stay on the pages they fully control and not have them visit anything out of their mall.

Good overview of why we don't see a speed up in development processes when AI tools are introduced. The bottlenecks don't magically get destroyed.

As if research wasn't already having a quality problem in submitted papers... now thanks to people jumping on LLMs to churn out papers faster, this quality is cratering.

Which means simpler models: and this is fine for most use! It's also easier to have more ethical options with the smaller and more specialised models. Let's not forget they exist even though the big industrial complex would like people to forget.

This feels a bit too realistic for my taste... and yet... Well this piece of satire is well crafted I'd say.

This piece is strongly worded but the logic is sound. We see many examples of power plays in guise of "innovation" which lead to killing openly sharing (and so killing real innovation). It's urgent to fight back and ensure things stay open.

So many requests based on vanity and hype... I like the question "when you go to other websites do you use it?", we should use it more. Maybe at some point we'll realise that simplicity matters.

It totally makes sense. If you're a FOSS project you have to invest in getting more long term contributors, which requires mentoring. The contributions themselves are not something to maximise. I wish more communities would follow that path.

This part of the industry is struggling more and more (or more likely silently taking more risks to hide the struggle). It has no path to sustainability and it starts to show.

More in depth look at the launch white paper and the issues covered in the PR. Not much survives scrutiny... there's nothing special with this model.

Indeed, and it's going to get even crazier at some point. I guess somewhat soon but who knows...

One of the dark sides of our industry, and this is is accelerating at a worrying pace. Maybe it's time to look at and fix the whole hardware life cycle?

Are we surprised it's mostly a PR stunt? Not at all. Of course, I agree a lot with the conclusion: we can't trust any claim from those companies. They try to present themselves as labs but mostly try to disguise marketing as research...

Stop looking at the shiny toy, remember the ethics behind them...

It's first a great marketing stunt. The model is likely not the secret sauce though.

Long but very precise piece about why you can likely ignore LLM for development purpose. Starting from older Fred Brooks work is spot on. Indeed whatever will remain of LLM based tools in the years to come, it's much smarter to focus on fundamental skills than chase the new tools. At least, I'm trying to do my share in getting myself and others better at the craft.