Haha, you made me laugh quite a bit, like ethical due diligence was even a bleep in the mental model of someone who talks like that about sentiment life forms.
When I was a camp counselor in my 20s I designed a one-octave "piano" out of one of these, a battery, paperclips for keys, and a shitload of resistors. We had the kids build them on proto board. They sounded harsh but you could play Mary Had a Little Lamb on them!
Look, Ihate Microsoft too but Edge is just Chrome with a different skin, so they'd have to have gone out of their way (and spent money paying engineers) to make Edge less secure than Chrome/ium.
The whole point of them using chromium shows how little they care.
The old edge wasn't used much no but that wasn't due to its engine. Most people don't even know what a browser engine is.
They just didn't want to bother making a browser. But they want to benefit from the marketing advantages of having a browser so now they just lift along with chrome.
I think they do care, but they care about relevance, not browser monoculture. Doesn't matter how good Trident was, no one was ever going to use it. Even Firefox is barely hanging on, and the only reason Safari is still somewhat relevant is because it's the only choice on iOS.
And my relevance I mean their bread and butter, enterprise, not consumers. Edge is what lets MS give enterprise IT departments maximum control without the grumbling of "we'd rather have Chrome" from the end users.
I honestly couldn't force myself to finish yet another blog post about how "we're not yet sure what impact LLMs will have on society" or whatever beleaguered point the author was attempting to make.
"Some random person's take on LLMs" was maybe interesting in 2024. Today it is not even remotely interesting.
There are a gazillion more interesting things happening today that ought to be of interest to the median HN reader. Can we talk about those instead?
I'm confused. If you don't want to talk about LLMs then why didn't you just flag the post and move on? Submit something interesting, upvote and comment on interesting posts, instead of feeding the engagement on this thread.
It sounds like you actually do want to talk about how much you don't want other people to talk about LLMs.
You're not supposed to flag a post for something like that. Ideally you downvote and move on if you feel that strongly about it. Flagging is meant to be reserved for stuff that breaks the rules or guidelines.
I am an AI engineer and I honestly agree. Talking about LLMs feels like the new crypto, with some nuances (i.e. many innovative things being possible and done with LLMs whereas crypto innovations were… few and far between).
it’s felt like the new crypto to me for about 2-3 years now.
i was doing an ML Sec phd a year or two before all this hype took off. i took one of the OG transformer papers along to present at our official little phd reading group when the paper was only a few months old (the details of this might be a bit sketchy here, was years ago now).
now i want nothing to do with the field in any way shape or form. i’m just done.
edit -- i got incredibly angry after writing this comment. pure hatred and spite for all the charlatans and accompanying bullshit.
Sadly investing is all about making money… you should be more pissed at the naive people who have contributed to the effort and in particular those who don’t care about truth, but about cash flow potential.
I have a lot of nostalgia for the pre-9/11 world too but be careful with the rose tint.
It wasn't so wonderful if you were gay, for example. AIDS was still new and scary in 1990, and society was not so accepting of that lifestyle.
I remember when I was a teen it wasn't uncommon to go to a Boston Pizza-tier restaurant and have the waiter make a quip about "not wanting to look like a fag" by ordering the same thing as the guy next to you. This was a thing into my 20s, as late as 2007 probably.
It's interesting to me that many of the comments about not romanticizing the 80's and 90's across all forums reference 'it wasn't that good if you were gay' which would be like 3-5% of the population at the time? We had a society that 95% of people would say was ideal and the only knock is that it wasn't great for a small minority versus now we have a lifestyle that is universally panned...
As long as you didn't have any gay friends or family, or just cared how other people get treated.
It's not like being straight was perfect protection. You'd get abuse just for acting in ways that had been arbitrarily decided to be gay-coded.
There was plenty of other bigotry to deal with as well. For example, support for interracial marriage was under 50% at the beginning of the decade (in the US), and was still under 2/3rds by the end. Bigotry is still plentiful, of course, but it was quite a bit worse then.
What does the ethical due diligence process look like, for something like this?
reply