When a company says “AI made everyone more productive, so we need fewer people”, I want to see the evidence - and I don’t believe it exists today.
I think these companies doing "AI layoffs" do actually see improvement though it is a placebo and not caused by the AI usage. Don't we know for a long time already that leaner software teams perform more efficiently?
don’t read any of this as anti-AI
I am not afraid to say I am anti-AI it surfaces a rot that in this industry marketing ideals and anecdotes have more impact then measured performance and that many people still find it very hard to estimate a developers performance, impact.
AI is shit, doesn't speed up my work. Only 10/20% of programming is typing and AI can do that fast, but the whole process no. If you disagree show me a proper study where actual improvement is measured.
Probably you could get a cheaper and more constant improvement if you make sure the developers are properly trained in the IDE's and environments they are already using. For example give everyone a Unix programming course and a course in their preferred IDE.
yes it does seem fundamentally different. Most claims about AI are unmeasured marketing and favoritism. Similar to how management wants you to use eclipse or codeblocks to a developer that uses Emacs skillfully because it is shiny and new and they don't understand the requirements of the developer.
but the host (the company) will need to pay the price in the form of server equipment. Not the user as is the case with client side rendering. If server side rendering becomes slow it will affect all users regardless of their hardware or connection, prompting earlier response from management and devteams.
This game looks great I really like the style it is inspiring.
The author seems to consider open-sourcing the engine, I would also be interested in the mentioned scripts for asset creation. Those scripts would make a great toolset for asset creation in this style.
Yeah, DEC Alpha was the first thing to come to my mind. I guess some might argue it wasn't a "PC" - if you don't include what used to be called "workstations". This is largely because PC meant "personal computer", and very few people could afford their own DEC Alpha - they were very pricey ($20k at some point in the 90's, I believe).
x86 boots in 16-bit real mode. Then you need to specifically transition into 32-Bit, and from 32-Bit it can be transitioned to 64-Bit Architecture...
The last step (32-bit to 64-bit) can a bit of a can of worms especially on older platforms where 64-bit implementations can differ greatly and 32-bit "just works tm". 32-bit is quite well supported and has enough resources to make some interesting programs work without much hassle.
I think the author has made the decision not to support 64-bit mode due to needing to balance the complexity and usability of the project. It is a hobby project after all.
Since the author maintains a 16-bit and 32-bit for this project I suppose if you wanted you can always fork and maintain a 64-bit version if you wanted to.
> Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil.
What is it a tool for, it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
Privacy, a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people.
Any tool is (as long as it exists) always used for right or wrong, good or evil. However what might be good or evil is very subjective. Both in the moment and looking back on the use of the tool. Therefore it might be best to consider not creating the tool at all, instead of the current we'll try it and see what happens rhetoric.
A nuclear weapon is a tool. You can use it to blast a city-killing asteroid, one you just noticed, into pieces that'd burn in the atmosphere (and miss the city). You can also use it to mass murder an entire population.
> it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time. We should create the legal frameworks to protect ourselves from the misuse of the technology.
This might make sense as some entirely abstract theoretical statement, but in real political theory it's not exactly sound to imagine a government spending a massive pile of cash to create a tool that they never use, and if it's usefulness is greater when misused it will be misused.
Then it hits reality and it takes about 5 minutes for governments to start abusing it and when caught will retroactively legalise their actions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23769206
> The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time.
By choosing not to engage with a tool you are deciding that the tool serves you and your goals (perception of good) best by not being used. You can make it illegal to use the tool but as long as the tool exists it does not mean it won't be used.
Think of the millions devices part of a botnet or web accessible camera's that are being used illegally by malicious actors.
Isn't it worth considering if we actually need and/or want this tool to be build in the first place?
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should"
This tool is already built. This is why the focus should be on legal frameworks that help us prevent misuse and punish abuses in a way rigorous enough to prevent it.
Not all misuse will be prevented, but we need to build the tools (which aren’t more technology) to prevent the abuse.
Because in the UK people believe, media enhances this, they can get stabbed for little to no reason or over a small argument due to mostly due to social tensions but also poverty. In the US it seems you have a high chance of not getting stabbed/shot if you don't agitate. So I think the paranoia about knives does not correlate with the likely hood of getting stabbed but with the unpredictability of it.
I agree that this is the wrong direction to develop into.
From what I could tell a man was stabbed, didn't die, a minor event that happens every day in cities everywhere and always has - and then the locals decided to have a pogrom.
Detection, even if "on-device, fully private". Is meant to notify others, the person viewing the image already knows what they are viewing. I would argue that the notifying of others of what (kind of imagery/category) you are viewing, is the main violation of privacy, even if the actual imagery is withheld.
Actually withholding the image may make it harder to fight the accusation (in court) if wrongly categorized.
For now the category argued seems to be "nude children" but what safeguards are there that prevent another category "politically sensitive"?
Are any of us expecting that there are safeguards in today's global political environment? in tomorrow's?
Honestly, the only safeguards against abuse of surveillance are that the surveillance not happen in the first place.
Once it has happened, the only safeguards keeping the owners of the system from using it to coerce and control the masses exist in the form of pitchforks and ropes wielded by the masses, and the days when that was a real potential for repealing any such coercion and control are fully in the distant past.
These systems are made possible and installed beyond the reach of any constituent based consent - see the current condition of Ring cameras, Flock, and the many tools created by Palantir et. al and much like the boiled frog analogy the citizenry has sat in their movie theatre and restaurant seats telling each other soothing lies about how the goal was to make us even safer from ourselves and now we are steps away from the fully immersive per-person verified identity and 24-7 observation of what everything, everyone read, writes, says, and does. Exactly as the 'foil hats' have been telling them would happen if they didn't speak up sooner.
Tough cookies, we all get exactly what we deserve for letting it get this far out of hand. It's no use crying over spilt milk.
AI is shit, doesn't speed up my work. Only 10/20% of programming is typing and AI can do that fast, but the whole process no. If you disagree show me a proper study where actual improvement is measured.
Probably you could get a cheaper and more constant improvement if you make sure the developers are properly trained in the IDE's and environments they are already using. For example give everyone a Unix programming course and a course in their preferred IDE.
reply