They rarely know what they’re doing, are guessing 90% of the time, bandwagon anything they think will make them more money or notoriety, and get paid exorbitant amounts of money doing nearly nothing to actually earn it.
I used to adore her, back in the day when she was on Carson. Then she had to become successful and turn into what she is now. Humility is not a concept she has ever pondered.
It’s strange to me that if the guy has such a problem with how open source software works (such as his code being used (ideally with license being followed), bugs, pull requests, etc), why did he not just keep it closed source?
Seems to me he either didn’t understand how open source works, or he got way in over his head.
Yes. I have a healthy, but irrational fear of falling. Heights do not bother me (flying in a plane is no big deal in terms of the height). But if I am even a foot above the ground under my own power (say, on a ladder), I get extremely unsteady and nervous.
So bicycles were out pretty much from the beginning.
My family, when I was young, would try to convince me by asking, “how can you drive a car if you can’t ride a bike?” Yeah my response shut them up pretty quickly: “a car has 4 tires and is stable.” I was seven years old.
Oh so now that the oppressive ideology and regime are affecting them, too, the men suddenly have a problem with it. Seems we’re at the “and find out” stage.
Yes, and that’s what is being called out here. But your original comment makes it sound like you are advocating for closed source software and that somehow open source software is bad.
This is the system working as intended. When potential issues arise, it’s openly discussed and ideally resolved. And if not, trust is lost and people will stop using it.
Exactly. Acting like this is an “ah-ha, see?!!” moment when this is exactly what open source is designed for. That’s like saying global warming is a hoax because “oh look it’s snowing”.
Sure, that, too. Problems are problems, irrespective of by whom and where they are discovered. And solutions should be matched to the problem. If AI is such a solution, great! But I'm not yet convinced that we need to use AI and be in search of problems (which is what CEOs are doing right now), hence my original comment.
I don't even know how to respond to this. It makes no sense at all and doesn't really relate to or respond to my comment except it happens to use the word "lazy", I'm guessing in reference to my comment. Good luck trying to push LLMs, not sure what your agenda really is, other than to be argumentative here. Peace.
When companies can answer this one simple question, “What specific problem does implementing AI (LLM, etc) solve?”, only then might I consider it.
I have heard of only one, maybe two, instances of AI solving a real problem and it has to do with helping a person to speak again, or to walk again, etc.
I have yet to be convinced of any specific problem AI is solving in a browser or an operating system.
And just because “the internet” is latching onto this latest thing, doesn’t mean it’s right. It just means people see a shiny and want more of it.
Maybe not unique in my opposition…but…
CEOs. (Especially of large companies)
They rarely know what they’re doing, are guessing 90% of the time, bandwagon anything they think will make them more money or notoriety, and get paid exorbitant amounts of money doing nearly nothing to actually earn it.