There was practically no responsibility taken by the author, all blame on others. It was kind of shocking to read.
Anyone using these tools should absolutely know these risks and either accept or reject them. If they aren't competent or experienced enough to know the risks, that's on them too.
And it doesn't even have to do with these tools in the end, this is a disaster recovery issue at its root. If you are a revenue generating business and using any provider other than AWS or GCP and you don't have an off prem/multi-cloud replica/daily backup of your database and object store, you should be working on that yesterday. Even if you are on one of the major cloud providers and trust regional availability, you should still have that unless it's just cost-prohibitive because of the size of the data.
That should be buried, I agree 100% with their headline and structure over yours.
For comparison, if the amateur did it by hand but the result was sloppy to read, would you prefer "Amateur solves an Erdos problem" or "Amateur came up with a novel approach to a problem that later turned out not to be totally stupid and terrible for once"?
What do you mean by the Gell Mann part? The output from this tool may be bad, but AI music in general is extremely good. My playlist is largely "AI artists" at this point and they're really good, to the point where if you look them up online, it's mostly people being finding out they're AI and being sad about it (I also felt this - would love to see them live, but they're not even real).
I know what music I like. I said I wanted "dystopian, ambient, droning music with ear-filling, warm bass. No drums or beat."
What came out was some pretty generic dubstep that one might hear on a Verizon commercial circa 2018. Subjective, sure, but a big miss given the instructions I gave it.
Now let's say I ask it to generate code to scrape all real estate listings that were recently taken off the market. The output looks good enough to me, and I'm happy. But is the underlying architecture just as bad as the music?
Got it, I like that. I see what you mean but I think a lot of that is just this tool is bad - like coding models from a year or two ago, they look convincing, enough that you waste your time on their bad decisions.
I think SOTA on both fronts has already reached exceptionally good though.
Or till that Asimov story happens in real life to you, you are in a room with people arguing about who is AI and who it not - and in the end you were actually the only human left.
OMG, some of those are legit good. That said the AI seems minimally guidable. It seems to ignore three majority of instructions in https://suno.com/song/25b16ab7-bfea-451d-abb3-8b52cdd783d0?s... so I guess like most tools, it's fine if you want to get what you're given but not really control it.
Jensen came across as incredibly defensive and intentionally close-minded, shows that even billionaires suffer from "a man can't understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."
Your assertion is silly: did Tesla selling electric cars into China stop them from delivering their own industry? They were going to develop their domestic industry regardless.
We simply don't know the counterfactual, if they had unlimited access to Nvidia chips, how far ahead would their models be?
I thought Jensen’s comparison to Huawei’s cell phone hardware infra (towers and networking) to be an interesting comparison- that shutting them out of a market was one of the causes of their current position in the market. It made them more dominant in the end.
ChatGPT has more web traffic than X, Reddit, Bing... Crazy to say they wouldn't be able to capture meaningful ad budget. IMO partnering on this is a blunder.
It comes together quickly, though. They don't need to learn how to become a company that knows how to sell advertising; they can instead just pay some other entity to do that.
It's OK to not have complete vertical integration. (They probably don't fix their own toilets, either.)
And if it makes as much money as it seems must be possible, then they can just buy one of the advertising partners that are already have plugged into their system and shitcan the rest.
I have no strong opinion on the original thesis but your fact doesn't make the point you think it does; you're right that no one lives in most of Australia, nearly everyone is concentrated together on the coast. Australia is a bit more urban than the USA overall from a population perspective, despite being vastly less dense overall due to the areas that no one lives in. So there would be fewer people to carry the cultural individualism.
About 9 out of 10 Americans live in cities (incl burbs) and the same holds for Australians. Sure, there's fewer notable population centers in Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and you got nearly everyone), but there's also just 10x fewer people than in the US so that kind of matches too. I think the picture you link to distorts this, it does not account for the fact that there's simply way fewer Australians.
I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.
> I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.
I don't think so either, but because of the climate and geography, I also don't think there'd be 10x more cities, similar populations, I think you might end up with 2-3x more, really, at most.
That's a rather expansive view of cities based on what the US Census categorizes as urban vs. rural. Between myself and a couple neighbors, we're on close to 100 acres, but that's urban according to the census because we're not that far from a major city and fairly close to some smaller ones.
I get furious every time this comes up and somehow there are bootlickers ready to defend big tech on it.
My ~2 person small business was almost put out of business due to a runaway job. I had instrumented everything perfectly according to the GCP instructions - as soon as billing went over the cap the notification was hooked up to a kill switch, which it did instantly.
GCP sent the notification they offered as best practice 6 HOURS late. They did everything they could to not credit my account until they realized I had the receipts. They said an investigation revealed their pipeline was overwhelmed by the number of line items and that was the reason for the lag. ... The exact scenario it is supposed to function in. JFC.
Almost wish the people defending it were paid. Almost more intelligent to rush to the defense if there were a direct financial benefit.
Part of it is possibly the curse of knowledge. Someone in the 99th percentile of cloud configuration experts simply can't recall their junior dev days.
In my junior dev days I always paid for the resources I used. Just because you consume a lot of resources by accident that doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for it. Accidents do not absolve you from liability.
It's not about not paying for the resources you use. It's about not having any mechanism to limit those resources, despite that being an entirely reasonable thing for the cloud providers to provide.
Using these platforms is like giving everyone in your business a credit card with an infinite limit. If someone steals it, or anyone makes a mistake, your liability is literally unlimited for no reason at all other than complete laziness by the counterparty.
These are completely normal and expected concepts in commercial contracts that the cloud providers just have no respect to provide. I would even wager that their bigger customers have this in their contracts and only SMBs get screwed like this.
This is not about paying or not paying. It's about cloud providers not having working tools that let you limit your spending.
If I don't set up a budget and run up a huge bill, fine, sure, I should probably pay for it. But if I follow best practices and set up a rule like: "if usage > X €, then stop accepting jobs", and I do it correctly according to the vendor's instructions, yet it still lets me blow past the budget, that's entirely on the vendor.
I know software is special. That's why software defects are acceptable while a crumbling bridge is not.
With that said, should this apply to other industries? If I clip a warehouse shelf on my first day driving a forklift, should my wages be garnished for life to cover the inventory? Or is the inherent nature of the logistics industry such that an accident does not always imply liability? (Or other)
That mutually exclusive with our originating comment you think?:
"...I always paid for the resources I used. Just because you consume a lot of resources by accident that doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for it."
In my experience they're not taught it, it's instinctive. The easiest way to get a free hand seems to be to hand a ball over to your other hand directly. It makes sense too, it's counterintuitive that it's much easier to throw the ball up and over back.
My sort of childlike mental model of satelite imagery of the planet is that we've "covered" everything but does anyone know at what frequency we do get new satelite imagery for places like the antarctic (or, say, the dead middle of the atlantic ocean?)
I imagine that satelite imagery is a bit needs based but maybe every square meter of the earth is captured at least once a couple of months
(Not the same thing but am reminded of how despite the importance of the internet and undersea cables for fixing things, there are _very very few_ boats that can actually repair them. Maybe there aren't that many satellites pointing at some parts of the globe)
Around the poles is a bit of a blind spot in satellite coverage. The angle with which the satellite orbit is offset from an equatorial orbit is called the orbital inclination. Because the earth rotates under the satellite, a 0° orbit would give you perfect coverage of the equator and not much more, a 10° orbit would give you good coverage of a band around the equator, etc. The closer to 90°, the more coverage you get of the northern and southern latitudes.
Now there's a neat trick you can pull where you go into a special 98° orbit (so like a 82° orbit, but in the other direction). At that point the slight bulge of the earth twists your orbit around just so that for any given point on earth you always pass over it at the same time of day, giving you identical shadows. That's called a sun-synchronous orbit, and is obviously immensely helpful for optical observations. But those missing 8 degrees prevent you from observing extreme latitudes. Usually we don't care because not much is happening there anyways
Even satellites without optical instruments usually suffer from the same blindspot. For example if you look at the Starlink constellation almost all satellites only reach up to about the middle of Great Britain. Everything further North is only served by a much smaller number of high inclination satellites. And there don't seem to be any Starlink satellites going directly over the poles
> I imagine that satelite imagery is a bit needs based but maybe every square meter of the earth is captured at least once a couple of months
Probably, but likely not as thoroughly as you'd think.
The problem with most high-resolution imaging satellites is that they are not designed to work over the ocean. They can't track the Earth perfectly, so they use a lot of image processing to "unsmear" the images. These algorithms rely on tracking recognizable features moving across the frames. Which obviously fails with the ocean.
So you often get hilarious results with images of offshore drilling platforms or ships.
That being said, there are satellites specifically designed for ocean observation, so they likely won't miss something as big as a new island.
I watched a youtube vid recently (so use that to calibrate your bullshit detector here) that said there are a bunch of companies and even freely accessible satellites with Synthetic Aperture Radar covering the entire earth every 12 days.
Well, they often have pre-discoveries for astronomical stuff. Where they find whatever they just discovered already being on old photographs. Why would satellite pictures be any different?
Anyone using these tools should absolutely know these risks and either accept or reject them. If they aren't competent or experienced enough to know the risks, that's on them too.
reply