I don't care how hard it was to live in Abyssinia. This is absolutely the worst time to try to make a life in the United States since WWII ended 80 years ago, and there's every reason to believe it is going to continue to get worse for a long time. I have no idea why you are dismissive of people saying this is a difficult time.
This company's goal is to ... change an aspect of hundreds of different million-dollar highly regulated machines made by dozens of different multi-billion-dollar worldwide companies? And somehow make money doing this? Good luck, I guess.
It's almost a certainty that LLMs have a "core" that will essentially never become obsolete, possibly even 80% to 90% of their parameters. The rules of English and other languages, core ideas in math and science, all of history, nearly all literature, etc. We don't really understand what's going on inside LLMs enough yet to make good use of this, but one day we will have "core logic" neural networks with stable weights burned into ASIC that are doing the heavy lifting, with more dynamic continually-tuned models manipulating the inputs and outputs into those core models. There are also likely stable expert models on topics that don't change much that we could already do this with.
Inference costs cannot keep falling forever, but they do still have a long way to go.
The danger of AI has always been the recklessness and maliciousness of the humans who wield it, rather than some Skynet or paperclip maximization fantasies. So yes, just like with guns, with mass media, with any other powerful tool.
"Okay, then I'm going to rewomble the dinglehop, which should un-galvatrate the percapitator." Why is the SVP in the meeting at all? If they don't want the details, they can't contribute to the change, or even evaluate whether the change makes sense at all. The SVP could be completely removed from this situation and the outcome would be exactly the same. Which shouldn't be surprising, since that's almost always true of all executives anywhere.
> Everyone nods their head, says "that makes sense", and we all move on with our day.
Why? Why do you need to be intimidated into actually making effective change? Why is everyone walking around with their hands tied, unable or afraid to enact change? Probably because of the terrible leadership at this company.
>> "We missed it because Alice was on holiday and Bob thought the Widgets team owned it".
> Okay. How do we make ownership unambiguous when someone is unavailable?
You cannot take this step without details. That Bob-Alice story is the details. You do actually need to know that story before you can take the step of knowing that "unambiguous ownership" would be a worthwhile change to make. What exactly is this SVP doing again?
This entire post could be summarized as "executives are useless" and "do the 5-whys", both of which everyone already knows.
It's the same vibe as "They called <insert genius> crazy for his ideas!"
Yes, the also called lots of actual crazy people crazy. In fact the probability of actually being crazy, given people are calling you crazy, is very high.
> for some odd reason though, there's not many rabid windows fans.
Windows users are the ones who don't want to think about the OS at all. They want to get something else done and have the OS get in their way as little as possible. Linux fans want to dig deep into their OS and play with its internals; Mac fans want the OS to be an experience: trendy, sleek, reassuring. The kind of people who like it when the AI tells them "you're absolutely right!". Windows users generally understand that Windows is awful; the worst operating system, in fact, except for all the other ones.
reply