This whole thread of discussion and elsewhere, it's surreal... Are we doomed? In 10 years some people will literally worship some AI while others won't be able to know what is true and what was made up.
10 years? I promise you there are already people worshiping AI today.
People who believe humans are essentially automatons and only LLMs have true consciousness and agency.
People whose primary emotional relationships are with AI.
People who don't even identify as human because they believe AI is an extension of their very being.
People who use AI as a primary source of truth.
Even shit like the Zizians killing people out of fear of being punished by Roko's Basilisk is old news now. People are being driven to psychosis by AI every day, and it's just something we have to deal with because along with hallucinations and prompt hacking and every other downside to AI, it's too big to fail.
To paraphrase William Gibson: the dystopia is already here, it just isn't evenly distributed.
Correct, and every single one of those people, combined with an unfortunate apparent subset of this forum, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs actually work.
International pressure when US is shielding and blocking literally any move against means effectively nothing. Sure, you or me can say we will for example never buy products from Israel but thats about it.
And such move will not change anything in this behavior just make some israeli farmer (maybe still employing some palestinians/arabs) lose some income.
I’m not sure if this is an honest question or not, but I’ll treat it as such, even though you could answer your own question quite easily. The West is not complicit in the actions of the Iranian regime in any way that is similar to the situation with Israel. We are not arming the Iranians with the weapons they turn on civilians: very much not the case with Israel. Israel is treated like a normal state, whereas Iran is an international pariah and the subject of crippling sanctions. I could go on. The point is that westerners protest the actions of Israel because we believe we are part of the problem and that our protest might make a difference.
In fact, we believe - quite rightly - that if the US had conditioned military assistance to Israel on appropriate care for civilians, then the awful tragedy that unfolded in Gaza could have been averted. Similar levers for changing the behaviour of Iran do not exist.
If the US alliance with Israel is the reason why this conflict generated so much protest activity, then why didn't the pro-Palestinian left object to US ally Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign and blockade in Yemen? The US arms the Saudis. Much of what happened in Yemen is very similar to what happened in Gaza (airstrikes that hit civilians, hunger caused by blockading imports, etc)
And there have absolutely been examples of mass protest movements against regimes that are hostile to the US that are committing crimes against humanity. Years ago I went to a huge demonstration about the genocide in Darfur on the national mall in Washington. Raising awareness of what is happening and putting pressure on the Iranian regime (and on Western governments) can have an impact regardless of whether or not the West is hostile to Iran.
>In fact, we believe - quite rightly - that if the US had conditioned military assistance to Israel on appropriate care for civilians, then the awful tragedy that unfolded in Gaza could have been averted.
What you saw in Gaza was ALREADY incredible levels of care and restraint (that has cost many Israeli soldiers their lives) to minimize civilian harm, when fighting against an enemy that benefits from increasing said harm.
I'll say it again and again till people wake up, this is the endgame of all religion. It doesn't matter which one, they all breed hate and encourage the othering of out-groups. This is why the middle east will never know peace while their governments are Theocratic.
Because the far worse Palestine massacre was perpetrated by an ally of the West, defended by western politicians and opinion makers, financed with western money and armed with western weapons. Then it makes sense to protest against your country's complicity.
Protesting in your country against an enemy country that has been subjected already to all kinds of sanctions and military attacks makes little sense.
People protest to affect political change in their own countries. For example, that's why Americans now protest against ICE and not against the secret police in Turkmenistan. In my country, the government recently signed a secret arms deal with Israel to sell it weapons. Weapons that are then used to maim children. I don't like that. Major politicians have said that Israel should be "thanked" for what it's doing in Gaza. I don't like that either. Hence, why I protest. If the Sionazi regime in Israel was isolated in the same way as the Islamic regime in Iran or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan people would protest less because there would be less political change to affect.
> People protest to affect political change in their own countries.
Hu? What about Palestine? Is it the US? People can protest about anything they want. Foreign policy or international intervention (in any form) are 2 of them. If people think they need their government to do something about a foreign country they can protest. And many times when people have double nationality they can also protest for their own country.
Protest is not only for political change in our own country. As much as people can protest for Palestine, people can also protest their own cause about what is happening in Iran.
People are vandalizing Jewish restaurants, synagogues and monuments; terrorizing Jewish people and students; and murdering random Jewish grandmothers on the streets to affect political change?
There's nothing western governments can do to stop this. There are no demands western people are making to their western governments. While for Palestine, people want our governments to stop giving bombs to the attackers.
There are very clear and easy things that those governments can do to stop all of this.
Isolate the regime.
1. Declare irgc a terrorist organisation, establish sanctions for them and their families, mostly living abroad, block their assets abroad (like we did with some of the Russians involved with Ukraine)
2. Close all embassies in Iran
3. Cut all diplomatic ties with the regime.
This will completely isolate the current regime. Cut the safety net of the IRGC, and close the tap of money, effectively this will reduce close zero the money flows tha sustain all this and make the system very likely collapse.
Why we don’t do it? I guess oil sales to India and China are a good starting point. Then there’s the support to Russia with weapons and tech for Ukraine ‘special campaign’, and let’s not add the fact that a destabilised Middle East is so convenient to so many.
I'm pretty sure Iran and Israel are enemies. Israel picked a fight with every single country in the region, to my knowledge, except for the other USA allies.
There probably isn't the same awareness. This is the first I'm hearing of a massacre in Iran. It's so hard to keep up with the news these days and for many it's just recommended to avoid it because it's all outrage generation now. The EU has been massively occupied with threats to invade Greenland for the past month along with the subsequent media attention, so that has saturated the news cycle.
I don't remember my government sending bombs to the Ayatollah so they can keep carpe-bombing Tehran.
Protests serve to force your government to take action. i honestly at this point don't see what could mine to to stop this. Given the sanctions are not working, the only option to change Iran is maybe a direct intervention like Syria. And that sure worked great.
This has been said before on here, but the main reason here is because in the West (particularly the US and Germany) there was a large group among the general populace supporting the genocide in Gaza, but in the West there is no large group supporting the massacre in Iran. The latter is an extremely fringe position to hold on the level of flat-earthers. People either don't care or are against it. When there's such a consensus, there's less controversy, less to talk about.
Palestine had a ton of easily accessible video evidence, and not just from the victim's side but also lots of "hot takes" from the Israeli side as well, lots of talk from Israeli civilians and government officials about how there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and other deranged plainly genocidal remarks. In other words, there can be no reasonable doubt about what was going on and the only question really is who's side you're on.
With Iran, there's not a whole bunch of similar material, the death count estimates vary greatly from source to source, and we've got an untrustworthy president beating a war drum which probably makes people a bit more skeptical.. Atrocity propaganda to persuade a democracy to enter a war is something attentive people will be familiar with; incubator babies being tossed on the floor, dissidents being fed feet first into industrial grinders, people remember these stories preceding other wars and remember that evidence for the claims never materialized. Then there's the whole geopolitical angle where the Trump administration in fact supports Israel and Iran happens to be one of Israel's most powerful regional opponents. There are plenty of reasons to temper feelings of certainty.
Liquid Glass was actually a big surprise for me, and it was a shock to see Apple moving forward with this and nobody stopping it. Microsoft did that with Vista back in 2006 and they stopped doing this. So Apple is copying a 2006 design? From Microsoft? Where even Microsoft stopped doing it because of all the known issues? So many questions...
Even Vista did not have nearly as many problems as Liquid Glass. Most of the elements were static images, and the "aero" effects could be disabled, as well as the "Fluent Design" effects in later Windows 10.
Liquid Glass - with its wobbling jiggling jerking, shimmering and flashing, blurry and difficult-to-read, shifting and unpredictable design, and battery-demolishing performance - is so much worse. It's mindblowing how bad it is.
I would be very tempted to place a bet that nobody in the decision making chain used Vista or Compiz to any degree.
Commercial software coding glorifies denying anything older than 10 years exist outside of museums, let alone learn anything from it. The same has merely infected design world.
But they did use early builds of liquid glass and that should've triggered nausea and someone must've said "Don't"... yet they still did. You don't have to have gone through Windows Vista time to understand UI/UX (least of all, Apple Designers).
Is this known to be true or speculated? I don't know how this process is handled at Apple specifically, however, generally decision-makers are highly detached from UX. One would think that, especially for an overhaul initiative, "important" people would daily-drive dev/nightly builds to wear off the cool factor and experience the not so pleasant annoyances, but generally they shield themselves from that and mostly look at the "cool demos".
Regardless, as far as I am aware Apple has a tight product release cadence and ties feature gates to that. Obviously hardware readiness gates are much earlier than software, but I can easily imagine situations where "yes men" report "good enough" at gates relevant for marketing, feature gets greenlit, but then gets half-assed for the actual release. Recall iphones crashing at the initial release demo? Might as well be history rhyming.
I’m so sad I had this idea at least 6 years ago but I didn’t have the connections to make it happen. But that’s nice that they released the project. Apple open sourcing their tech?
Doing research? Sure... Maybe. But it doesn't mean they are going to get anywhere to mass production... What was their last huge innovation? On top of that I won't give that much credit for what they do or say they do. Remember how much they lied about many of their "innovations" like IBM Watson?
People do not have anything to do with IBM Research. As long as IBM Consulting exists, your name will be seen as tarnished and not be taken seriously by most technology workers.
Scanning Tunneling Microscope and high-temperature superconductivity are 40 years old! Magnetic storage was invented in the 60s! Wow that's so recent. We are living in the future! /s
I won't even comment on the rest... You just proved my point.
Yes in data science there is say: “there is no free lunch”. With ChatGPT and others becoming so prevalent even at PhD level people that will work hard and avoid to use these tools will be more and more seen as magicians. I already see this in coding where people can’t code medium to hard things and their intuitions like you said is wacky. It’s not the imposter syndrome anymore it’s people not being able to get their job done without some AI involved.
What I do personally is for every subject that matters to me I take the time to first think about it. To explore ideas, concepts, etc… and answer questions that would ask to ChatGPT. Only once I get a good idea I start to ask chapgpt about it.
Look up the numbers. OpenAI actually loses money on every paid subscription, and they’re burning through billions of dollars every year. Even if you convince a fraction of the users to pay for it, it’s still not a sustainable model.
And even if it was the highest profit branch of the company, they still would see a need to do anything possible to further increase profits. That is often where enshittification sets in.
This currently is the sweet phase where growing and thus gaining attention and customers as well as locking in new established processes is dominant. Unless the technical AI development stays as fast as in the beginning, this is bound to change.
I actually wondered about this myself, so I asked Gemini with a long back and forth conversation.
The takeaway from Gemini is that subscriptions do lose money on some subscribers, but it is expected that not all subscribers use up their full quota each month. This is true even for non-AI subscriptions since the beginning of the subscription model (i.e. magazines, gamepass, etc).
The other surprising (to me, anyway) takeaway is that the AI providers have some margin on each token for PAYG users, and that VC money is not necessary for them to continue providing the service. The VC money is capital expenditure into infrastructure for training.
Make of it what you will, but it seems to me that if they stop training they don't need the investments anymore. Of course, that sacrifices future potential for profitability today, so who knows?
That’s just a general explainer of subscription models. As of right now VC money is necessary for just existing. And they can never stop training or researching. They also constantly have to buy new gpus unless there’s at some point a plateau of ‘good enough’
The race to continue training and researching, however, is drive by competition that will fall away if competitors also can't raise more money to subsidise it.
At that point the market may consolidate and progress slow, but not all providers will disappear - there are enough good models that can be hosted and served profitably indefinitely.
For some uses, sure. But for plenty of uses that can be provided in context, RAG, or via tool use, or doesn't matter.
Even for the uses where it does matter, unless providers get squeezed down to zero margin, it's not that new models will never happen, but that the speed at which they can afford to produce large new models will slow.
That's the source you chose to use, according to you.
You don't mention cross-checking the info against other sources.
You have the "make of it what you will" at the end, in what appears to be an attempt to discard any responsibility you might have for the information. But you still chose to bring that information into the conversation. As if it had meaning. Or 'authority'.
If you weren't treating it as at least somewhat authoritative, what was the point of asking Gemini and posting the result?
Gemini's output plus some other data sources could be an interesting post. "Gemini said this but who knows?" is useless filler.
The mediocre AI summaries aren't promoting Gemini when you can't use them to start a chat on Gemini. They effectively ads and search results for no benefit.
What is also interesting is one of the biggest search companies is using it to steer traffic away from its former 'clients'. The very websites google talked into slathering their advertisements all over themselves. By giving them money and traffic. But that worked because google got a pretty good cut of that. But now only google gets the 'above the fold' cut.
That has two long term effects. One the place they harvest the data will go away. The second is their long term money will decrease. As traffic is lowered and less ads shown (unless google goes full plaster it everywhere like some sites).
AI is going to eat the very companies making it. Even if the answers are kind of 'meh'. People will be fine with 'close enough' for the majority of things.
Short term they will see their metric of 'main site retention' going up. It will however be at the cost of the websites that fed the machine.
You don't even need to bring up corporate collusion, countless price gouging schemes, or the entire enshittification movement to understand that competition discovers the dark patterns. Dark patterns aren't something to be avoided, they're the natural evolution of ever-tighter competition.
When the eyeball is the product, you get more checks if you get more eyeballs. Dark patterns are how you chum the water to attract the most product.
