I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Zuckerberg's testimony. His primary argument for avoiding liability is one the article writer explicitly agrees with: the science of "social media addiction" is highly contested, and it's not clear that it's real nor that the plaintiff had it if it is real.
Nor is "passing the buck" a fair characterization of the article author's criticism; he clearly does not think that Apple or Meta should be in the business of age verification.
> No need to process anything in parallel, the machine can run the token through 100 layers faster than the user can type.
Yeah if your usecase is chat sure, it can run faster than you can type. For anything useful, like code autocomplete, or agentic coding, the context is always in the hundreds of thousands of tokens. And usually the new prompt is going to be 50 to a few thousand tokens (if you are including error tracebacks for example). And the user will typically expect hundreds of thousands of tokens to be generated. If you don't believe me use cerebras with claude code and watch it generate millions of tokens in a few minutes.
> A user noticed that their email signature formatting was off in Cora, our AI-powered email assistant. I asked Claude Code to investigate and fix it. By morning, the fix had touched 27 files, and more than 1,000 lines of code had changed. I didn’t write any of them.
Email signature formatting, 27 files, more than 1000 lines of code changes? I would not read that code either, that's automatically rejected. I can't possibly imagine a problem that would result in a subtle formatting bug that would require that level of change.
> migration that moved email_signature from one database table to another
Migration? For a formatting bug? Are you sure?
Stop self-snitching people, this kind of behavior is beyond unprofessional, its negligent. Anyway have fun with your unreadable spaghetti code base.
So what are the economics here? How much does it cost? How much power does it draw? What's the cost per gallon?
Side question, why go through the trouble of turning the methanol into gasoline? Methanol burns and modern cars should be able to run on high grade methanol alone. They definitely can run on ethanol.
You get x-many joules of energy from combining each carbon atom with two oxygen atoms, then you have to capture that energy and turn it into useful work, but that is a lossy process. So even if your gaoline-from-air machine was 100% efficient you would still need to burn more carbon than it captures just to run the machine, so to make it run you need to supplement it with some other energy source.
If you already have an additional energy source with which you can run your gasoline machine then why make the gasoline at all? Just use the energy source you have directly in an electric car.
It depends if it can produce gasoline at a cost similar to pulling it out of the ground and then distilling it, it might be worth it. There are over 1 billion internal combustion cars around the wolrd. They are not going anywhere anytime soon, powering them this way has incredible advantages for everyone involved even if we ignore climate change.
Oh Yeah, it's the AI. It can't be that GDP growth has stalled to 0.1 per quarter. We are definitely not heading for a recession guys. It's all unicorns rainbows and robot butlers in our future.
They also answer might these things quite casually. The response may not come from people who know. Its probably been delegated to someone quite junior.
I once saw a survey question (on what the view was of economic outlook and exchange rates) been bounced to someone junior, who then looked to an external source which based its answer partly on the previous version of the same survey.
Saying you are laying people off because AI, makes the company look like it's innovating and embracing new technology. Saying you are laying people off because costs are up and earnings are struggling reflects bad on the image of the company and the performance of the leadership. Everyone has incentives to lie.
What we would be seeing if the AI uptake was productive would be faster GDP growth, and an uptick in the job market as they would be looking for people to leverage the AI into even more productive gains.
Companies tend to lie towards their employees in similar ways as to the public. Very often most if the organization ends up believing the lies. The few people that do not tend to keep shut or go elsewhere.
reply