I don’t think it’s supposed to have a cohesive narrative structure (at least in context of a structured, more formal critique). I read the whole thing and it’s more like a longer shitpost with a lot of snark.

Had a very similar experience in pretty niche-use cases. LLMs are great if you understand the what you are dealing with, but they are no magical automation tool (at least in somewhat niche, semi-technical use cases where seemingly small errors can have serious consequences).

Yeah, I was curious what new use cases were being deployed; was disappointed not read about this in the article.

Only recently have they started leaving companies like OpenAI and taking a stance because they‘re actually seeing what their creation is used for and with how little care for human life it‘s been handled.

Is this true though? From my understanding, Altman was able to overrule the board largely because the employees (especially the one who had been with the company for more than 1-2 years) were worried about their stock options.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the OpenAI team are ghouls just like Altman, that fundamentally lack humanity (incapable of honesty, inability to tell right from wrong, incapable of empathy).

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean this in the Hollywood sense, like the evil antagonists in say star wars, I am sure they come off as “normal” during a casual conversation. I am referring to going deeper and asking subtle questions referring to matters of ethics and self-enrichment in an off the record environment. They will always come up with some excuse to justify their greed as being “for the betterment of humanity” or some other comical word salad.

Pretty dystopian article.

But this will continue, until oligarchs like Altman, Cook, Nadella etc. start getting put into difficult situations; ones that create very strong incentives for them to show humanity (or at least emulate it).

I think that ship has sailed; I can’t see this being a priority for Google and supporting this seems like a massive undertaking.

This confuses me… I thought that a project being attached to a crypto/Blockchain was a good thing? Because things you create on the Blockchain stay yours and are secure and the project can somehow self fund itself. All very confusing, but something like that. Are you saying that ALL Projects built on a Blockchain are suspicious? Very interesting

I do think blockchain/crypto is a massive red flag.

From a product perspective, the focus will always be on “pump and dump” not the actual product/service. See “web 3.0 gaming” for a perfect example.

Not sure what you mean about “staying yours” and “secure”.

The tone and the writing style seem to imply otherwise, it’s almost like PR copytext. For example, Point 7 arguably contradicts Point 5 and 6. It’s like an infomercial for tech fans.

Although I see what you mean with respect to the concept of implementation and the actual implementation.

Personally, I think this is more of a financial play, he’s got to be thinking about how to maximize benefits (financial, status) in the next few years before the hype dies down. This is a very cynical mode of thinking; but I think my cynicism is justified.

It’s fascinating to see someone who is positioned as “one of the top 3-10 AI scientists in the world” endorsing a platform based on some marketing videos, without even trying it, let alone reviewing any of the critical details.

That’s wild! 692 “partners”, I wonder if anyone even sees the irony of that message.

Good find!

They will also assure you that Apple totally doesn’t not collaborate with the CCP and allows them full access to all Chinese users data.

Apple users like to assure people of many things. :)

Crypto/blockchain is the kiss of the death for the legitimacy of any project.

You just know the whole thing will built around pump-and-dumps or quick rug pulls.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, were you referring to the actions of lemmy.ml mods or the proposal to avoid lemmy.ml communities?

Not to be overly dramatic, but any initiatives from these major tech companies (doesn’t matter which one) should be treated with absolute skepticism.

I would suggest trying to get out of the english-language (American-centric) internet bubble with respect to dialogue, “challenging beliefs” and the broader nature of what you consider to be censorship.

Focus on real-world (internet can be a red hearing) examples of cases (particularly in Asia, Africa but Europe and LATAM too) that contradict your statements around “just ban anyone who threatens their bubble”.

Then consider the what are the real world consequences of tankie propaganda, again better to avoid US narratives/examples. Just try a good faith approach to this question.