That’s why I said it’s more expensive, but large companies can make it up in volume. The extra expense only makes sense if you can take advantage of the E.G. increased transport capacity provided.

Isn't this functionally the same thing? What happens to smaller companies in this hypothetical? Are you not assuming that they get pushed out of the market shortly thereafter?

You’re assuming that LLMs can ever be made accurate. I think you might be able to make them somewhat more accurate, but you’ll never be able to trust their output implicitly.

I am assuming this. I am assuming that we're at the bottom of this technology's sigmoid curve, there is going to be a ton of growth in a relatively short amount of time. I guess we'll have to wait to see which one of us has a better prediction.

As a programmer I am absolutely not worried in the slightest that LLMs are coming for my job. I’ve seen LLM produced programs, they’re an absolute trash fire, most of them won’t even compile let alone produce correct output. LLMs might be coming for really really bad programmers jobs, but anyone with even a shred of talent has nothing to worry about.

You have described the state of LLMs right now. Programming languages seem like a perfect fit for a LLM; they're extremely structured and meticulously (well, mostly) defined. The concepts and algorithms used not overly complex for a LLM. There doesn't need to be much in the way of novel creativity create solutions for standard use cases. The biggest difficulty I've seen is just getting the prompting clear enough. I think a majority of the software engineering field is on the chopping block, just like the "art for hire" crowd. People pushing the limits of the fields will be safe but that's a catch 22, isn't it? If low-level entry is impossible, how does one get to be a high-level professional?

And even if we take your [implied] stance that this is the top of the S-curve and LLMs aren't going to get much better-- it will still be a useful tool for human programmers to increase productivity and reduce available jobs.

if we don’t adopt UBI, universal healthcare, and some amount of subsidized housing

This has been my stance for years. Automation is coming for all of us. The only reason LLMs are so controversial is that everyone in power assumed automation was coming for the blue collar jobs first, and now that it looks like white collar and creative jobs are on the chopping block, suddenly it's important to protect people's jobs from automation, put in safety nets, etc, etc.

Forgive my cynicism. haha

This feels like wishful thinking. Any automated system (cars, LLMs, etc) only need to be better than a human doing that job. Your example, for, um, example, ignores that self-driving trucks don't need to take sleep breaks, or bathroom breaks, or spend time with their families, etc.

Using the assumption that this is the bottom of the curve for this LLM technology and that we still have a lot of expansion in the tech coming in a relatively short amount of time, then I would guess that any job that makes art that is "work for hire" will cease to exist, and I imagine programming is going to take a pretty big hit in available jobs. I don't think you'll be able to get rid of human programmers altogether, but you'll need way fewer of them.

You shouldn't trust ChatGPT for that, but your company could definitely spin up their own LLM and then we're back at the problem.

I am mostly judging by the "hot" feed, since I only follow a few people that I knew via Twitter, and to a significant degree you're right-- there was the same kind of drama on kbin and lemmy when I joined. (I checked out threads for ~30 seconds so I can't say about there) I don't remember anything like that on Mastodon, but I'm sure it's there. It seemed more rapid-fire on bluesky. Specifically there seemed to be a lot of hate against the devs on Bluesky for various reasons.

In any event, it's a pretty big echo chamber right now but that's to be expected while it's in invite-only. I'm sure it will settle out when it opens up to the general public.

One, it doesn’t seem like they’re comparable products for most uses.

ChatGPT, the user-facing website, is not comparable to google, but the technology itself is directly comparable. I am using Google's own brand of chatbot-in-search (not bard, but probably is bard in the background) and it really does a good job taking the information from the top couple search results and compiling it together in one place for me to get the answer to my question. It seems (seems) less likely to hallucinate since it seems to be pulling information specifically from the search results; I obviously don't accept what it outputs without clicking through to the source websites, but I could see that becoming unnecessary in the future, since so far I haven't seen anything misrepresented or made up.

It's like Google's thing where they pull short answers to questions from popular websites (like wikipedia) but dialed to 11.

It's very... dramatic over there, and I know it's supposed to be a beta (trust me, I know) but there seems to be a lot of missing functionality. I pop in every few days and it's like there a new moral outrage about bluesky each time.

Trademark infringement, as opposed to copyright infringement, is all about customer confusion. If my vacuum repair shop is called 𝕏, then it's not likely to cause customer confusion if a sandwich shop opens up and brands themselves as 𝕏.

This may be why there are so many different X trademarks, and why none of them "went after" each other.

If I remember correctly, Meta's does pertain to social media, but as far as I know they're not using it, so it might get messy there.

Also, in case it's not clear. The 𝕏 is just a normal unicode character. Dude couldn't even be bothered to pay someone to make a logo for him.

It's mostly true, but not entirely. The data "on the internet" has to live somewhere. For instance, when you DM someone on a social media network-- would you consider that private? I assure you the content of those messages can be read by the website's admin-users.

If you're hosting your own non-social web service (like, personal cloud storage or something), then that is arguably private for you, but if you let someone else also use it, then it is not private for them, because you can almost certainly see their file content, having access to the server directly.

Encryption can throw all of this off; a service like Signal is private-- the admin-users of Signal can't see your messages. Generally speaking any service that warns you that all your data will be lost if you forget your password is probably private. If they can recover your data, they have access to your data.

Edit: Better word choices.

What's bad faith about my argument? There's only two options: You believe what you typed and that it's impossible to make this mistake, or that you were using hyperbole, and you acknowledge that it is possible to make this mistake. These two options are both mutually exclusive and binary-- there can be no other stances. (and notably you haven't actually clarified which one you believe.)

I didn't make you choose to defend a poorly thought out stance. That's on you.

I appreciate the additional information, however, a link found in the codeberg link you provided leads to this comment from earnest:

The up arrow is the equivalent of a boost on Mastodon, adding to favorites is represented by a star. The down arrow is equivalent to the Dislike button on Lemmy and Friendica, Mastodon probably doesn't have an equivalent (Dislike will be federated this week). Compared to Lemmy, it works a little differently, as the up arrow there is the equivalent of a favorite.

The comment activity can be checked by expanding the "more" menu and selecting "activity"

This seems to imply that downvotes (reduces) are federated. (And notably, upvotes are now "stars" "boosts" are, uh, "boosts"; this was changed since the linked comment was made)

Or am I totally missing something? That's always and option.

A fallacy is just pointing out that your argument isn't likely to arrive at the truth. As I explained, your "I met a dumb person and so all arguments against this are dumb" stance isn't useful, even if we agree you're not just making that all up.

I asked for clarification. Is that your stance? That it's fundamentally impossible that someone could accidentally send a SMS in Signal while thinking it is secured? I'm going to assume that you don't believe it's fundamentally impossible, so that mean your real stance is that if that happens and someone gets sent to jail or worse, that's a small price to pay for your convenience of not having to *checks notes* switch between two apps.

Do you see how your lack of perspective might be leading you to make a poor argument?