Both anecdotally for myself and from what I'm reading in the news, it seems just as likely that AI usage has already largely peaked.
There was a lot of hype and exploration of capabilities, but models aren't evolving fast enough to keep that going, so I'm settling down into a familiarity with what an LLM can and can't do that means I am using them less overall that I was 6 months ago when I was throwing everything under the sun at it just to see what happened.
Without either new model breakthroughs or dramatically _lower_ costs, I will be very surprised if the ultimate market doesn't end up within an order of magnitude of where it is today.
I think this is minimally likely. While as individuals on the bleeding edge, we're perhaps using these tools less and less, and our echo chamber reinforces that, the penetration of AI into the normal corporate workplace is still very low - emails rewritten with ChatGPT, meeting notes summaries generated by default, etc. There are a million use cases for LLMs which are not yet built out. The tokenmaxxers will begin using AI less, but the penetration into the mass market will continue at a huge velocity.
I agree that more uses will be found and that maybe we're not at the peak. But it also seems very clear a few players have been actively working to inflate usage numbers by margins that might take a while to replace with legitimate uses
Exactly. Like how Meta has a "blow our money on LLMs" leaderboard. Seems like a few companies are attempting to inflate hype enough so all the investors can exit without losing their heads.
Reminds me of the crypto hype but where the hype agents are some of the largest companies in the world.
Plenty of people have personal projects where the purpose is the end result. One small recent example of my own, I'm a long-time Garmin watch user. I struggled with learning all of the details of their custom language, runtime and SDK in the pre-LLM world. With agentic AI tools, it was dramatically easier to write a watch face that looked the way I wanted. From there, I very much did learn a lot and do a lot of re-writing and tweaking to make the code actually somewhat good, but the custom watch face was the point for me. I really couldn't care less about Garmin's esoteric tech stack. The only reason I bothered with everything after the vibe-coding step was to try to optimize power consumption where I could.
A key component of the GPL is the requirement that source of code of programs that use the GPL code be made available. Without IP laws, how would you achieve that goal of the GPL?
I mostly addressed this in a sibling comment, but I wanted to add that if copyright wasn't preventing companies from copying and building upon the works of others, I find it likely that the industry would be more free and competitive.
Source code is a recipe. You can't copyright recipes by themselves, but that hasn't caused any sort of chilling effect in the food and hospitality industries.
I agree with you that removing copyright protections breaks the GPL. What I think most responses to my comment miss is that we wouldnt NEED the GPL without copyright. Copyleft only exists so that copyright cannot be used by companies against users.
I know Stallman isnt the most popular on this forum, but history has sorta proven he was right, time after time.
How does this work, concretely? Do you just upload your W2/1099s/etc and prompt it to "do my taxes"? I imagine it's not that easy, but filing my (trivial) taxes with any of the well known tax prep services is easy enough that the LLM version can't get very much more complex than "do my taxes" and still be an improvement.
Upload all the needed forms, upload the forms to be filled, but output instead to a spreadsheet instead of trying to get the model to fill out the .pdfs. I then manually filled out the forms from the spreadsheets.
Take this with a mountain of salt since I've not at all an expert, but with a little help from AI, it seems like the exemption lives in 2023/1670 [0]. The LLM claims that this and the regulation you link are interconnected, with the recital of 2023/1542 explicitly linking them.
>Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries
Can you provide your source for this? If nothing else, it's very surprising to me that an EU regulation uses a US standard as the baseline!
Edit: Having done a bit of reading on the standard, it also seems like the regulation needs quite a bit of detail if it really does rely on the MIL-STD, since the standard only defines test procedures, not pass/fail criteria?
You have to manually install hooks in your local repository. They aren't propagated as part of the repo. Git has intentionally made hooks require a very explicit opt-in.
Muse this - train is a tool, just like a car, bus, bike, plane, drone or rollerblades.
Repeating "trains" in every transport context is unproductive. Each mode of transport requires certain density. Most US cities just don't have it. It's that simple.
It's not at all that simple. One of the neat things about trains is their permanence - once you've built one, you can fight for allowing increased density repeatedly until you win. That's what we've been doing in Seattle!
I'm really curious how old you are. The great grand-dad part makes you think you're my age or a bit younger, but then I grew up very middle class and I don't know if I've ever even seen a black-and-white TV.
From googling just now, color sales exceeded black and white by the 70s. However, new black and white models were still being introduced even into the 90s in the U.S., particularly in the budget or portable segments, and were still being sold new into the 2000s.
I'll imply those things. If you don't fit in the seat, you should have to buy two seats is a not very controversial opinion on the internet IMO. I think that opinion basically violates all of your "surely"s already.
Where do you draw the line? A 250lb person probably mostly fits in their seat still, but at some point a person is just physically going to take up two seats. Do you really think the airline should be responsible for flying them in business class (premium economy doesn't give you more width on most/all airlines)? Does it matter if their weight is due to a medical condition or just laziness? What if they're so big that even a first class seat won't contain them?
The issue is for the airline to solve, since they are the ones trying to make seats comically small.
Also, you have to include other attributes. E.g. Not my problem that you have freakishly long legs, if you have to prevent me reclining then maybe you should have to pay for premium economy. And what if you are broad shouldered? Same deal, not my problem, you have to stay inside the boundaries of your own seat.
I would rather we used regulation to make economy seats a bit larger. Call it a safety issue, since it is.
There was a lot of hype and exploration of capabilities, but models aren't evolving fast enough to keep that going, so I'm settling down into a familiarity with what an LLM can and can't do that means I am using them less overall that I was 6 months ago when I was throwing everything under the sun at it just to see what happened.
Without either new model breakthroughs or dramatically _lower_ costs, I will be very surprised if the ultimate market doesn't end up within an order of magnitude of where it is today.
reply