When Amnesty International feels like it has to publish a 44 pages briefing pointing out what's wrong with your approach and business... it'd be nice to pay attention.

Very interesting take. This gives very valid ground on why tech communities should reject AI based contributions. Not doing so will indeed hinder the commons communities rely on to exist and improve. This is a path to prevent getting better at inclusivity and diversity (which is really needed).

This is clearly the Ouroboros moment in our industry. People pushing for such restructuring and layoffs are drinking the kool-aid and will ultimately be responsible for killing what put them there in the first place.

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.

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...