>This is a clear signal that generative video is deeply unpopular.
Or, it's a clear signal that AI video is too expensive as a consumer product and/or not quite yet at a quality bar that the average person finds acceptable.
I think someone could have looked at computer graphics and SFX circa the '80s and decided that they would always pale in comparison to practical effects. And yet..
It's an annoying trope, but this is the worst and most expensive (at this quality level) that these models will ever be.
You seem to be mixing up intelligence and consciousness. Not only does intelligence exist outside of humans, and even mammals, but it exists outside of brains and even neurons. For example, slime molds have fascinating problem solving abilities: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11811
It is clear that whatever we are...creating/growing with LLMs, it is very unlike human intelligence, but it is nonetheless some type of intelligence.
>He was a typical pro-gun anti-abortion homophobic and racist MAGA Christian conservative.
Sure, but let's be real: people here are hardly mourning the man himself, so much as a few ideas of him from media they loved, and the cultural impact of Chuck Norris memes from their childhood and such.
He's not around anymore to bolster any hateful messages. Let people have a moment of nostalgia for memories watching him roundhouse kick bad guys with their grandma, or dumb Chuck Norris memes on the playground. That's what people remember.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is entirely some sort of widespread bad behavior. Many non-profit boards conduct research on salaries and essentially size their organization and pay something akin to a market rate for the given size and scope.
However, even a small percentage of bad actors finding a way to inflate their salaries will, as a side effect, inflate salaries across the board because it influences the process that sets the salaries for the honest organizations.
I suspect abuse is more prevalent at the low end, among nonprofits that don’t do much.
I stand by the point of my original post: People often underestimate how much the leaders of nonprofits pay themselves. These are figures you can look up and quiz your friends to test the hypothesis, if they’re into that sort of thing. For a good time include some nonprofit hospitals.
That's fair, but the boards of nonprofits are as corruptible (I'm reluctant to use that word since we're talking about fairly standard practices, not outright crime, but whatever) as those in the corporate world. But I wouldn't want to keep talking about this situation as if it's all theoretical. In contrast with a lot of the corporate world, with nonprofits you can just go and look at what their officers are paid (it's public record) and decide for yourself what you feel about the figures.
Would you support Microsoft doing the same thing to Windows?
These are general purpose computing devices. It's sure taking a long time, but Cory Doctorow's talk on the war on general purpose computing is sure starting to become a depressing reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Microsoft is doing the same thing, they call it S-mode. A surprisingly large amount of computers are sold with Windows S. Thankfully S-Mode can usually be disabled even if your computer shipped with it enabled.
Windows S mode is a streamlined version of Windows designed for enhanced security and performance, allowing only apps from the Microsoft Store and requiring Microsoft Edge for safe browsing.
> If Google actually takes away the ability to run unsigned code, my next phone will be an iPhone. And I rarely even run unsigned code.
Same here. If I must be in a walled garden, then I will choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't one of Google's crappy platforms.
The only reason to put up with the shittiness of Android is freedom. The same freedom they keep eroding with their constant, never ending attempts to force remote attestation and sideloading limits.
GrapheneOS is the last hope for Android as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully Google won't find ways to screw that up.
> it might finally result in me fully exiting the Google ecosystem
Don't wait for them to push you away. Start exiting now. Setting up mail on my own domain and distancing myself from gmail is one of the best things I've ever done. Highly recommended.
I've noticed with GrapheneOS, that more recent builds are exhibiting weird issues. This isn't their fault, it's upstream ASOP issues. For example, just in the last few weeks:
* The date has now gone missing from my lockscreen, only showing the time.
* I can no longer see signal strength on my phone for mobile, if wiki is off. I turn wifi on, and now I can. I use a larger font, but it used to be just fine.
There are all sorts of little changes like this I've noticed recently.
It makes me wonder if Google is slowly mangling default ASOP so projects like GrapheneOS will have a crappier daily build experience.
And GrapheneOS doesn't have time to manage features changes like this, they focus on their key security improvements and fixes. If Google is doing this on purpose, it has real potential to seriously degrade ASOP as usable without lots of fixes and changes.
They already rug-pulled security updates or whatever it was a few months back.
And it really seems like the sort of sneaky, underhanded way Google would handle things.
Odd, I don't have those issues (date is on the lock screen, network signal strength when wifi is off is there). Played around with font settings but that changed nothing. Up to date stable version of Graphene on an 8a. Are these beta versions? Or maybe it's phone dependent.
Do you have 'Receive security preview updates' on?
Google stopped publishing any info about security updates until (I think) quarterlies come out. GrapheneOS had to sign some sort of non-disclosure for them, in order to roll them into updates.
If you don't have that on, then you're not fully up to date with security updates. This could be the difference.
> GrapheneOS had to sign some sort of non-disclosure for them, in order to roll them into updates.
So doesn't this mean GrapheneOS is effectively controlled by Google now?
Also, how is keeping anything secret under NDA possible at all if you want to know what's in a security update and be actually able to build that update yourself from source?
Buy a cheap unlocked smartphone and run GrapheneOS[0]. I want my smartphone to be like my linux computers where I run them for as long as the hardware works and is still relevant. My iPhone 12 is getting close to its end of life support, yet it is still working well. We should expect better from trillion dollar companies. So I'm not supporting them with dollars wherever I can afford not to. That and I think it's more enjoyable to run something off the beaten path. I like to explore the space a little.
I swapped out my MBP for an Asus Pro Art running linux last year and that's been working out pretty well. Hopefully my cheap motorola phone will be supported by GrapheneOS soon and that will work out too.
GrapheneOS will support future Morotola phones that meet a subset of their requirements, rather than existing phones. Less likely to be budget lines for now.
The cheap Motorola phones won't support GrapheneOS because they are missing some of the security features that GrapheneOS requires. The Motorola partnership is for some new phones: hopefully at a lower price bracket, but likely to be flagships or 2nd tier.
Just to switch to an even more aggressively monitored and tightly controlled walled garden?
People sometimes act as if the one would be an viable alternative to the other. Even both are effectively the exact same shit for the exact same reasons.
There's already an ecosystem of essentially undifferentiated infrastructure providers that sell cheap inference of open weights models that have pretty tight margins.
If the open weights models are good, there are people looking to sell commodity access to it, much like a cloud provider selling you compute.
I think there's way more nuance to this than you're willing to admit here. There's a significant difference between the guy who thinks "I'm going to make X app to do Y and get loaded." and the person who really understands the details of what they want to create and has a concrete vision of how to shape it.
I think that product shaping and detail oriented vision of how something should work and be used by people is genuinely challenging, wholly aside from the lower level technical skills required to execute it.
This is part of the reason why I wouldn't be surprised at all to see product manager types getting more hands-on, or seeing the software engineering profession evolve into more of a PM/SDE hybrid.
A proper PM should be moving towards owning design and marketing pieces - not production of software. Software is a means to package an experience captured by the design and communicated via marketing. It's that simple.
Most PMs don't match this description. So I understand the frustration's of engineers who have had to work with PMs.
A well constructed BRD is a very large chunk of the context needed for more successful use of an LLM. You're welcome to disagree, but I've found increasingly that the work artifacts from PMs are becoming even more essential to the actual development.
If you understand the design and user experience end to end and can express that effectively in writing, that's...your agent context. Why do a context hand-off to another human, or at least why remain as silo'd as we have historically been?
I completely agree with this. I actually spent some time recently working on the design for a project. This was a side thing I spent months thinking about in my spare time, eventually spec'ing an API and data model.
I only recently decided to take it on, given how capable Claude Code has become recently. It knocked out a working version of my backend pretty quickly, adhering to my spec, and then built a frontend.
The result? I realized pretty quickly that the (IMO) beautiful design just didn't actually work with how it made sense for the product to work. An hour with the prototype made it clear that I needed to redesign from the ground up around a different piece to make the user experience actually work intuitively.
If I had spent months of my spare time banging on that only to hit that wall, it would've been a much more demotivating experience. Instead, I was able to re-spec and spin up a much better version almost immediately.
Or, it's a clear signal that AI video is too expensive as a consumer product and/or not quite yet at a quality bar that the average person finds acceptable.
I think someone could have looked at computer graphics and SFX circa the '80s and decided that they would always pale in comparison to practical effects. And yet..
It's an annoying trope, but this is the worst and most expensive (at this quality level) that these models will ever be.
reply