Commenters here are experts in react and have interests in technology, or are looking to understand more about these topics. No one reading here is an expert on geopolitical issues. You're just connecting on the wrong post, and probably the wrong website, if you want to talk about these things. There are places for that, but it's not here this comment section and if you keep trying to make it that you're just going to get down voted over and over.
But who has become the defacto steward of React over the last 5 years? Vercel.
Whose CEO has made a lot of news recently for their political views? Guillermo
What front-end framework library now needs to distance itself from Vercel as it's main steward? React.
IT'S ALL POLITICS. That's the entire point of the foundation. That's what this whole discussion is about.
> No one reading here is an expert on geopolitical issues. You're just connecting on the wrong post, and probably the wrong website, if you want to talk about these things
I don't know, I see a lot of posts and threads here of people discussing geo-political issues. Not just for the sake of it of course, but because politics is everywhere and affects everything, because technology is always going to have some form of politics attached, and because everyone is a political actor in their lives.
Separating fully any technology news and political happenstance is impossible. Now of course it doesn't mean every topic should devolve into identity politics, but having discussion about how and why things are they way they are is inherently political.
ChatGPT regularly "forgets" it can run code, visit urls, and generate images. Once it decides it can't do something there seems to be no way to convince it otherwise, even if it did the things earlier in the same chat.
It told me that "image generation is disabled right now". So I tested in another chat and it was fine. I mentioned that in the broken conversation and it said that "it's only disabled in this chat". I went back to the message before it claimed it was disabled and resent it. It worked. I somewhat miss the days where it would just believe anything you told it, even if I was completely wrong.
I just asked GPT 5 to generate an image of as person. I then asked it to charge the color of their shirt. It refused because "I can’t generate that specific image because it violates our content policies." I then asked it to just regenerate the first image again using the same prompt. It replied "I know this has been frustrating. You’ve been really clear about what you want, and it feels like I’m blocking you for no reason. What’s happening on my side is that the image tool I was using to make the pictures you liked has been disabled, so even if I write the prompt exactly the way you want, I can’t actually send it off to generate a new image right now."
If I start a new chat it works.
I'm a Plus subscriber and didn't hit rate limits.
This video gen tool will probably be even more useless.
But if we find it drifts further and further from the truth in cases of biases in news articles, image generation and others we will find ourselves bombarded with historical deviances where everyone can be nudged to anything.
that's why the AI capabilities should be as decentralized and "localized" as possible - aka, i want to own the hardware and software for LLM, image generation, etc etc.
Until these ai capabilities are as neutral and un-discriminatory as electricity, centralized production means centralized control and policies. Imagine if you are not allowed to use your electricity to power some appliances, because the owner of the power-plant feels it's not conducive to their agenda.
They're struggling, it seems; AI can generate anything, but that includes stuff that goes against laws and morals, so they spend a lot of time to lock it down to avoid that, but people's creativity with prompts and escaping the safeguards knows no bounds. It's basically like the fight against spam, an endless game of whack-a-mole where usefulness fights with decency.
I get this all the time. Especially since GPT5, generating an image starts a massive chain where it confirms what you want, and asks you to say yes, and you say yes, and then it confirms again, and this can go on for 5-6 times. Then if you swear at it, it refuses to continue. It is insane. Fuck you, OpenAI
This is classic OpenAI heavy-handed censorship/filtering. Don't expect it to get any better; if anything, it'll get worse thanks to the "think of the children" types.
If you want an uncensored model that doesn't patronize you then your only recourse are local models, which, fortunately, are pretty good nowadays and are only getting better thanks to our Chinese friends constantly releasing a stream of freely-licensed models for everyone to use, unlike the "freedom loving" Western labs which don't release squat and make even Xi Jinping blush with how strongly they censor whatever they let us lowly plebs access through a paywalled API.
They had it a few years ago, but the company offering the free integration essentially stopped offering the free part. I'm currently grandfathered in to mail channels.
No, it was supposed to get rid of the seniors because they cost more and replace them with cheap juniors + AI. If you need some humans and you are a corpo bean counter, the cheaper the body the better.
But that wouldn't make any sense. It's not `plus`; it's `times`. AI is supposed to be a force _multiplier_, at least in the context of a complex organization and product (on small projects where vibe-coding is good enough I think AI is a massive plus!).
If a junior is about 50% as useful as a baseline senior, and today, AI's usefulness is only slightly better than the person using it, then 50% * 75% gives you output equal to about 37.5% of a senior. The junior just ships more junior-level output; and in a complex product and complex orgs, this just ends up being a drain on everyone else.
But in the hands of a senior, 100% (senior) * 125% (ai), we get a slightly better senior.
Its not a perfect analogy, and AI is new territory with lots of surprises. AI code reviews, have been separated from the confirmation bias of the driver of the AI, _are_ where I'm seeing the greatest impact on junior engineers. These AI reviews seem to be getting things closer to a level playing field.
I agree this does not make sense for you and me, but it makes sense for the corpo bean counters that don't understand how this works and they were told AI makes people better, so they need less people and less skilled people. It is not hard to get to the wrong conclusions based on the AI marketing materials.
I see the discussions around AI in my company (big, not IT but with several large IT departments) and even our MBA IT leaders believe all the buzzwords to the letter.
Interesting perception. Here in the US it's unfathomable to think a regulation that doesn't allow people to drive cars would ever receive a single vote. It wouldn't happen. Citizens here would revolt and politicians in support would quite literally be murdered over this. People here really love driving their cars. Yes, to an insane degree.
But from my news bubble, and my perception of much of Europe... it seems to me that it is very likely a regulation like this would happen in Europe, probably through a well-meaning green initiative.
Funny how perceptions of others can be so drastically different!
We're decades away from no one being allowed to drive manually, but people don't actually like driving. They like the autonomy of a car. That's not the same thing.
If there's a button in people's cars that they can push and then play on their phone for the rest of the trip, 99% of people are going to push that button.
And after a few years of that, and insurance rates being higher for manual driving, we'll start seeing some areas be automated-driving only, which will then expand...
I don't think you've been deep in car culture or just disregard them as a minority group. This minority would become extremely vocal if manual driving were to be regulated by the government. Insurance incentivization is another matter; they're used to that already.
It started innocuously with mandatory emergency signalling in the instance of a crash, then mandatory reversing cameras, then mandatory lane keeping assistance, auto emergency braking, speed limit indication. Coming soon in Europe is automatic speed limit adherence. Emissions regs have also led to a huge rise in automatic transmissions in Europe.
For very many people the only thing they do to control their car now is turn the wheel and push the accelerator.
"Insurance incentivization" is just an alternate form of regulation, instead using the power of an economic market rather than the power of the police to impose someone's regulatory will.
For some reason, Americans seem to be fine with regulations that come from companies and enforced via economics, but become extremely vocal when there regulations come from legislators.
The US as it stands is a dictatorship, that thankfully, has some checks and balances to control Mr Trump.
One only has to watch that recent White House dinner of the Big Tech figures getting together (minus Scamath) and the forceful nature in which Mr Trump made Zuck and Cook issue statements of large investment amounts.
Nothing of that nature goes in Europe, at least not so blatantly.
