Encrypt-Keeper

Hmm seems everyone is living in the same reality as you though, so your comment has no substance or meaning other than some weird self-enlightened moral grandstanding.

This type of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is the exact type of thing I’m talking about lol

People are absolutely justified and allowed to criticize the greed of this company. Part of living in objective reality is that you reap what you sow. Everything you just said is not really relevant to that simple fact.

Cool, nobody said you did.

Similarly, there’s no binding contract that says when you remove features from your software’s community edition in order to drive more profits without any added value, that I’m disallowed from criticizing you for it.

The users will have to deal with the loss of features, and you will just have to deal with the criticism.

I’m not a big fan of this sort of pseudo-philosophical contrarian fence-sitting.

I mean sure, he’s not technically wrong, but it also implies that while Developers have the freedom to perform these rug-pulls (they do), the author simultaneously wags their finger at the people who have equal freedom to react the way they have.

Developers (companies) are not entitled to be free from criticism or backlash for acting shitty.

Because tech isn’t fun anymore. It started before AI, but AI has really vacuumed every last atom of joy out of the work. That’s before you start looking at issues like the general lack of job security.

Introductory pricing specifically, not their regular pricing.

The anti-Proton propaganda machine is nuts. I have never in all my life seen so much time and energy put into trying to manufacture outrage over a single company.

Do you honestly think that nobody has thought about that and solved that problem already? Even with all the engineers involved, and after all the real-world testing,

That is the thought process of a child. If your defense of something with obvious issues is “Well I’m sure they know what they’re doing, because if they didn’t it would be bad”, I have some really, really bad news for you about the world.

If this was thought through by a capable adult, it would’t be implemented at all. The very fact that this solution is on the table is proof of the breakdown of rational thought. Or more likely, greased palms.

Your blind appeal to authority would hold more water if we haven’t already seen national adoption of AI products in emergency services that that have catastrophically failed to perform their basic functions, leading to real world harm. Audits of Flock cameras deployed in several cities found an error rate ranging from 33-70%. People are being arrested for things they didn’t do because the AI doesn’t work and nobody cares. People are being stalked because nobody thought of basic security controls.

We’re talking about an AI implementation, not some rigid set of if…elsestatements.

Even worse, we’re talking about an AI implementation of if…else statements. Regular if else statements are consistent. As soon as you throw AI into the mix they become unpredictable. You introduce a failure mode that didn’t exist before that can and will have real consequences.

Yeah I just don’t buy that there is a case where any “net gain” here is justified. These are people’s lives that you’re playing with by reducing them to what amounts to a balance sheet in the name of saving money.

The idea that you would create the possibility of denying someone emergency care that didn’t exist before, no matter how improbable (probably not even that improbable, given the propensity even the most advanced frontier AI models have for getting things wrong or hallucinating entirely despite simple instructions) just to save 10-15 seconds on average for other callers is not only absurd on its face, but morally bankrupt. You can personally ignore it because you don’t live there and it’s not the lives of you or your family at stake. I think those who this system could fail would not be able to ignore a flaw like that when it happens to them, and the idea that their peril was “highly improbable” will not be of much comfort to them.

The problem is that there are staffing shortages. The solution is hiring more staff. Trying to cheat our way out by implementing a system prone to unmitigatable flaws that could have life-altering or even life ending consequences isn’t a solution, it’s dystopian.

None of that applies if a caller just can’t get through at all because the bot mistook “no” for “yes”

I don’t think there’s any net positive that would account for not answering an emergency call at all.

Can you really justify someone not being able to reach help at all in place of everyone being able to reach it albeit slower?

As a lifelong first responder, I couldn’t get behind something like this at all.

• If caller answers “yes”:
• AI bot tells them that responders have already >been dispatched

So you’re gating whether or not a caller in an emergency gets to speak to a human based on the audio recognition of a robot?

Easy enough to make it so that if the bot doesn’t hear a yes or a no clearly it defaults to forwarding the call, but what happens when a person says no and the bot “hears” yes?

You think that a persons established pro-ai bias is not related to the inference of the bias of their ai-related comment?

I… disagree. That would be directly related.

And it’s of course not ad hominem in the slightest because an ad hominem is an attack on a person instead of an argument. That’s not happening here.

Your comment reads like a high schooler who just had their first class on argument and logic and hasn’t quite got a firm understanding of either yet.

It has a meaning, there just isn’t a strictly defined point at which something is no longer a startup. It’s used when it makes sense, which it does in this case. I’m guessing you’re not a native English speaker which is the source of your frustration. In the English language we have lots of words that are used to describe things which aren’t like enforced by some kind of regulating body. Colloquial uses of all kinds of words are pretty common.

If openAI has an “unproven business model” they’re not a startup they’re a failed business living off of borrowed and leveraged assets.

Thats what makes them a startup. “Failing businesses living off borrowed and leveraged assets with a hope and a dream that if they get big enough they won’t be failing anymore” is a pretty accurate assessment of what a startup is.

Hmm I don’t remember mobbing anyone. All I did was reiterate what the man himself said, in the face of you trying to spin it as more pro than it was.

When the guy says his AI use was causing him problems and he regrets it and wants to make a change, I believe him. Simple as.

lol sure pal. At least stick to your guns next time.

You’ve said plenty pro-AI lol. You don’t have to get so defensive about it, just own your position.

I’ve exaggerated nothing. Hank himself said he’s spoken to both his wife and brother about his AI use and said they “didn’t pull any punches”, which implies there was a blunt conversation about it, if not two.

Startup doesn’t really have a strict definition but generally the term is used for a business with an unproven business model that has to scale rapidly just to be viable, and often relies on VC funding. This is opposed to like starting your own plumbing business with your own capital and you’re profitable as soon as you pick up a couple regular clients.

OpenAI doesn’t have a business model yet and they don’t make any money so it makes sense that they haven’t shed the startup label. Like a roughly accurate test is to imagine what would happen if all the outside investments disappeared overnight. Could OpenAI continue operating on its own two feet? If the answer is no, it’s still a startup.

That’s probably why he wrote an in depth explanation of what he did, his motive, how it affected him etc.

His public posts on the matter were not made for the people who actually know him.

The user is not in between, they’re pro AI.

That’s exactly how that works lmao. “Anti” means “opposite”, not some neutral third thing