I feel like most successful businesses have such a moat of required capital to compete with them that even tho in theory poor decisions like this is supposed to give opportunities for entreprenuers to hit when the big dogs make a wrong move, it doesn't end up happening.
I feel like types doesn't really make a difference in this context. Types are good for enforcing standards between in a multi human situation, but AI doesn't really make the same mistakes that warrants it.
Kind of normal I think, at the companies I've worked for, most outages were caused by a change in production, for which the impact was not properly assessed.
We treat actual biological animals a lot worse in some cases so until we bump up the number of neurons significantly higher above what the lowest tier is below us I don't think we should stop the experiments.
Probably because you can't actually read anything more than the initial post without getting a login-wall: "Join X now to read replies on this post." (Not to mention "X" is a trash site now)
but people copy and paste pertinent info from articles all the time and have done for many many years, so why would you think it's a hard and fast sign of bot activity
History doesn't have to repeat. There's barely anything else going on in terms of innovation, and AI is a real step function technology. We might be overspending but there's no way we're getting another AI winter like last time (remember last time investment in 90s AI had to compete for resources with the internet boom).
> AI is here to stay. If used right, chances are it will make us all more productive. That, on the other hand, does not mean it will be a good investment.
The dotcom bubble burst and 26 years later we’re all hopelessly addicted to the internet and the top companies on the stock market are almost all what would have been called “dotcoms” then.
The railroad bubble burst in 1846 not because trains were a dead end - passenger number would increase more than 10x in the UK in the following 50 years.
