The biggest difference I see between the way I use LLMs and Terrence Tao's is that he's not constantly swearing at it.

I think Jevons Paradox and scaling laws will make this not the case. If bigger models are always better (which seems they are), then will always need high-end hardware.

Good luck. Anthropic gets to co-train their harness with their model. Can't see people competing with that unless they own the model.

Are you allowed to do this in places like airports?

I was just at a US airport and there were a bunch of signs saying you can opt out of having your face scanned at security, you just have to tell them.

Though, if you have a passport or driver's license, its not like they don't already have your face...

I think what makes something look like slop is rounded corner cards with slight shadow, and sans serif font.

Also full caps / overemphasis on text that doesn't need it. For example "DEMOCRAT" and "REPUBLICAN" in this example.

L O L

totally forgot i bought one of those pieces of junk

Can I seriously ask. how does anyone go about buying a piece of Spyware from the least trusted company in the world?

To me it's like buying health and fitness advices from a liquor or cigarette brand.

Because boomer mums fucking loved them.

They were easy to use and _so_ natural to talk to boomer parents.

Toddlers to phone up the grandparents really easily, and because it followed you about, it was easy and natural to use.

But, that only worked because boomer mum didn;t know about the privacy stuff.

If a corporation does not have an incentive to make money, it will not align its priorities correctly.

For every neatly diversified company you have 10 zombie companies with workers floundering around like ants without a queen.

If a corporation has an incentive to make money, it will align its priorities towards making money. Question is: are "making money" and "correct priorities" synonymous?

You use "zombie companies" as a universal pejorative and suggest we should all be instead worshiping at the alter of economic efficiency, JIT-delivery, and maximizing shareholder value without really considering the critiques there.

Yes, the "zombie company" strawman is paying people to move dirt from one hole to the other and back again which is dumb, but the "efficient company" has its own strawman, one drowning in manufactured debt, peeing in pee bottles in-between amazon warehouse isles, and unable to manufacture its own medical equipment when a black-swan pandemic event hits.

Which one is "better" largely depends on if you value societal stability or shareholder profits.

Or, in the framing of the article (which is summarizing Aoki, Milgrom, and Roberts), J-style companies exceed in periods of moderate volatility where 1) things don't change so much that you need the money-above-all-else incentive that favors strong hierarchical Jobs-like leadership that finds the visionary new solution, but 2) they change enough that the money-above-all-else incentive that favors value-engineering enshittification loses out to competition. The "societal stability" is just a part of the incentive bundle that forces the adaptation called the J-style approach.

Yes, objectively these characteristics of Japanese corporations seem like inefficiencies in the "free market".

Lack of mobility across companies (no price discovery on wages), lack of specialization (no focus), age based hierarchy (anti-meritocratic). None of these sound good for a well-tuned system.

I suspect much of Japan's stagnation is due to this system.