rpdillon

4 ms·

31.
by rpdillon 20d ago
We're having two different conversations. You're advocating for good citizenship, which is great. I try to do that, too. But I also know that's not scaleable, and folks are lazy.
32.
by rpdillon 20d ago
Just a note about language: when folks say they "don't have the money" or "don't have the time", it's almost never the case that they don't have any of the resource in question...it's about pri
33.
by rpdillon 20d ago
> Just let your kid draw something for your small restaurant. Wait, we've gone from "pay the local artists" because AI shows you're "lazy and cheap" and "don't care about your brand". And now
34.
by rpdillon 20d ago
They're not saying they can't live without it, they're saying it's helpful. If you've been walking to the well for years to get buckets of water, and suddenly have running water in your kitchen, going back to trudgi
35.
by rpdillon 20d ago
The analogy holds perfectly well. We can "no true Scotsman" this all day long. Any "real" artist could dunk on PS: "Oh, you didn't have to go out and buy a canvas and paint and brushes. Hell, you probably don&
36.
by rpdillon 20d ago
> here eventually there won’t be. That's a pretty big leap.
37.
by rpdillon 20d ago
> Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service. This is where I stop following. Businesses should focus on where they differentiate, and I really don't care how
38.
by rpdillon 20d ago
People don't think caring about your customers leads to failure, but it's a lot harder than not caring, and it does seem to be the case that it is mandatory to not care if you're going to be chasing massive valuations. We&#x2
39.
by rpdillon 20d ago
The person you're replying to is citing the incentives that are created. That's not cynicism, it's analyzing motives to help model outcomes. As for the buck stopping with the executives: can you apply this to a case I've
40.
by rpdillon 20d ago
My position is that there are too many off-ramps between us and the proposed inevitability. And the argument is not symmetric. The null hypothesis is that the world continues to function. The burden of proof is on the authors of the book to
41.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Only in a world where we can't make new copies, which does not seem to be this world.
42.
by rpdillon 21d ago
In your scenario, the bug is letting someone control all of that in a private collection. But that scenario is completely divorced from what is actually happening, so I don't think it's worth discussing too deeply here. If you act
43.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Seems to be some sort of vitriolic rant about conveying ideas and having them ignored for reasons the author doesn't like. > Not a single one of you self-proclaimed experts has actually debunked the technical evidence I provided bec
44.
by rpdillon 21d ago
And many of us inside the US as well, tbf.
45.
by rpdillon 21d ago
I'm aware of the book, it feels like vibes to me, and is unconvincing. Too many offramps between here and there.
46.
by rpdillon 21d ago
They are destroying books that they bought. It should not be controversial that part of ownership is decided how to dispose of the owned object. But nothing you're citing adds up to "destroying the foundations of civilization&quot
47.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Destruction of books is normal and totally OK. Publishing houses do it daily in the thousands. When you own something, you can choose how to dispose of it. Come back when you have the title of actually valuable rare books that were bought
48.
by rpdillon 21d ago
I really agree with this critique! It's very hard (without hiding behind ToS) to claim that creating the models was A-OK, but distilling them is some sort of ethical breach or attack.
49.
by rpdillon 21d ago
It's interesting to me that the actual motivations for releasing code open-source were very different than I had assumed for the past ~30 years. I always liked to give stuff away so folks could play with and try stuff. As far as I can
50.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Why does everyone ignore open-weight models in these discussions?
51.
by rpdillon 21d ago
> They are destroying the foundations of civilization No, they are not. For all the hype around that 404 media article, no one came forward with titles or authors. Turns out the booksellers that sold them those books said they were &quot
52.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Ah, but in this case the customer is buying the coffee for the caffeine content. And you've doubled the caffeine content per volume! Twice as efficient a delivery mechanism, similar to this model!
53.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Eh, when I read smaller with an integer multiplier, I mentally switch to the reciprocal. Easier than convincing the world not to use "9x smaller". Do you feel the same way about "9x faster"? What you're actually me
54.
by rpdillon 21d ago
I've had the same uncomfortable revelation. I probably read Sloshdot for close to 20 years before dropping it exclusively for HN, but now I have it back in my RSS feed and it is consistently producing interesting articles that I would
55.
by rpdillon 21d ago
Anti-intellectual? Because they don't believe claims that are backed up only by untested hypotheticals? If we're going to have whistleblowers emerge declaring a 10% chance we all die because of AI, we're going to need more th
56.
by rpdillon 22d ago
Allowing people to put off the disposal ceremony is the primary value of the service!
57.
by rpdillon 22d ago
Threatening to damage the reputation of the business unless the business paid their friends to redo the art. It's only not extortion if you ignore the extortative parts.
58.
by rpdillon 23d ago
When analyzing whether something is a net good for society, I look not only at the value it brings, but the cost that it brings. The mobile ecosystem normalizing the idea that the vendor that sold you your everyday computing device is the s
59.
by rpdillon 23d ago
Which harness were you using?
60.
by rpdillon 23d ago
What harness are you using? I've had incredible luck with OMP and Deepseek v4 Flash.

More ›