FileMakerFeller
About
- Username
- FileMakerFeller
- Joined
- Visits
- 75
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,491
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,573
Reactions
-
Altman beats OpenAI board and returns as CEO after stormy exit
OpenAI has been using the Azure cloud to run its software. MS already has all the compute required.badmonk said:
Agree completely Gator, plus add two dollops of outright greed to the dish. The money at stake in their eyes is just too great that the altruistic concerns to be careful are going out the window.gatorguy said:
I think it has more to do with Sam Altman throwing caution to the wind to chase profits, while the board's view was to work as a non-profit, and more carefully with greater consideration for the potential dangers. Employees with stock options, thus "skin-in-the-game", would logically side with Sam.planetary paul said:Obviously the intention was to kill off the company. Some serious litigation is in order methinks.
Apparently what Mr Altman was telling the board left a few things out, not a surprise considering what has been reported about his personality.
And for those of you who think that MSFT will immediately profit from this need to be aware that the computing power to run LLMs is so ridiculously expensive that their investment is going to take awhile to come to fruition.
I think white collar jobs are going to be under threat this time around unlike the automation efficiencies that affected blue collar work. Interesting times.
-
Deeply questionable rumor claims 14.1-inch iPad Pro arriving in 2024
"Deeply questionable" rumour marked only as "Unlikely" by AI. LOL.
-
Apple working on privacy tech to make shoulder-surfing iPhone screens harder
If you are already wearing Vision Pro, why would you have the monitor on at all? Just connect using the AVP as the display. -
Crypto zealots lead frivolous lawsuit against 'Apple led cartel'
You want zero transaction fees? Use cash. Cash comes with other costs, they just don't occur at the point of exchange.
Everything digital has to make use of infrastructure that costs money to own and operate. Everything based on debt has to borrow the money from somewhere and the people who are lending the money want to be paid for that service.
Your new "better than everything else" thing has its own costs too, you were just blind to them in your zeal for digital everything. Now that you see them, maybe it's time to re-evaluate if the new thing really is better than the old things.
-
Cook wanted Apple and Google to be 'deep, deep partners'
In Australia there have been regulations for decades that limit the time that can be devoted to advertising for a TV broadcaster. Streaming needs something similar, and "free to play" games on mobile need to really be brought to heel - sometimes an ad will be shown every 30 seconds, and the advertisement runs for more than a minute!avon b7 said:
There is zero issue with getting something for 'free' in exchange for my 'data' and ads.auxio said:
And there's the expectation that advertising-driven products have set up: everything should be free.avon b7 said:As an aside, I'm slowly seeing more and more YouTube ads (and longer) and constant nagging to upgrade to a paid subscription. I won't. I will simply stop using the service. Amazon Prime is going the same way. An irritating (and loud) ad every time I use a Fire Stick. More paid content mingling in with Prime Video subscription content. Price hikes across the board. WhatApp is about to get its backups integrated into Google Drive user storage.
I think we're not far off a tipping point and a potential unsubscription wave.
The reality is that it costs money to produce content: movies, TV shows, music, news, etc. So how do the people creating that content get paid? Is what they're doing not valuable (especially good quality news IMO)?
Back when the internet was first becoming a feasible way to distribute content (1990s and early 2000s), you had clever college kids creating technology companies which mass distributed content for free (ala Napster). Essentially an online version of CD/DVD bootlegging which made them quite rich at the expense of the people who created that content. And people not connected with those industries were happy because they could get things for free.
Eventually law enforcement and legitimate digital storefronts (like iTunes) were set up to ensure that content creators could have a source of income from online distribution. However, flash forward to advertising-funded digital streaming (where content is no longer purchased) and you have a similar problem. Where content creators are being paid fractions of fractions of pennies per view. Essentially negotiated to be as little as possible by the streaming service companies, and propped up by early investors who were willing to take the short term hit to grow the services for the payoff of their shares afterwards. Now that industry has come of age and the share gains aren't as big, those investors are cashing out and all that money which was propping up those services needs to come from the content itself (or ads). Hence what we're seeing today.
And now there's a backlash because the expectations have been set. This is exactly what I've been saying about the problems with advertising funded products.
The issue is the amount of forced ad content.
