They aren't useful now, but even assuming they were, the fundamental issue is that it's extremely expensive to train and run them, and there is no current inkling of a business model where they actually make sense, financially. You would need to charge far more than what people could actually afford to pay to make them anywhere near profitable. Every AI company is burning through cash at an insane rate. When the bubble pops and the money runs out, no one will want to train and host them anymore for commercial purposes.
expr
joined 2 years ago
...regular coding, again. We've been doing this for decades now and this LLM bullshit is wholely unnecessary and extremely detrimental.
The AI bubble will pop. Shit will get even more expensive or nonexistent (as these companies go bust, because they are ludicrously unprofitable), because the endless supply of speculative and circular investments will dry up, much like the dotcom crash.
It's such an incredibly stupid thing to not only bet on, but to become dependent on to function. Absolute lunacy.
I got this too, but what was really odd was that the message was rendered differently in the Connect app. Really wondering how that's possible to do.
There's no way that's right. If that were the case, then woodpeckers would be the scourge of trees everywhere.
Nope, we call it master. The hand-wringing over the name was and still is absolutely asinine.
Absolutely insane. More than my mortgage. Really curious how much this person makes. Is it 50% of their net income? 70%? The sheer logicistics seem insane unless you're making a shitload of money (over 200k).
You mispronounced fascist. That's what all cybertruck owners are.
50 strollers is "you deeply need serious medical attention" territory. Sorry you had to go through that.
You likely aren't familiar with modern Haskell, tbh. Things have changed a lot in the last handful of years. If you give me an example, I can show you how it can be done pretty reasonably (I write Haskell professionally, fwiw).
I've done that. It sucks.
They have different sets of tradeoffs and prioritize different things. Nevertheless, you can express typeclasses with the module system just as you can express the module system with typeclasses (using modern Haskell language extensions to the typeclass system). One is not more expressive than the other. You give me any usage of the module system, and I can show you how it can be done with typeclasses.
Heh, guilty. Pretty much always something where I had an ambition to make a change but got distracted or didn't have time to work on it.