FerrisEuler

Seems the same pattern at X, probably because they hired in an ex-YouTuber at the top. Moderation algorithms are universally very poorly written and don't appear to have gotten better in the last 6-8 years when they began using them to replace human moderators. On X they seem to have a timer for new accounts that puts a fake label on accounts as if they're spamming or a bot, when it's just a real user with opinions the algorithm is trained to dislike. Same exact crap the old Twitter did. They put the source code on the web and it showed how if you posted or replied on any of a broad range of topics, your account was scored lower until you were deemed low quality and made invisible. It's like they just wanted cat memes and recipes from elderly women, but not many of them on Twitter or X. Probably because they hired in people from companies where non-controversial topics were a much larger share of what was discussed there. 1 trick ponies who weren't suitable for doing the same job at X.

There's no way to boost ad views or MAU with that approach. I believe X will never be profitable due to those people running the show and Musk not ever hiring anyone a lot better to run X. Musk had a similarly bad experience with Solar city. Another company he didn't know enough about to manage himself and the people he hired to do it weren't good enough either.

Based on my usage of Linux, Windows 10 and Windows 11, I have no doubt that Windows 11 uses at least 1-2gb more of ram. It runs like crap on older PCs while Windows 10 runs okay. That's the true test.

I've dealt with AI and know the history with hallucinations. Today Hallucinations are more of an issue when it's a controversial topic (politics, religion, or issues the political influencers have taken control of in the media).

They're fed training data pushing a narrative preferred by the AI developers, who leave out the contradictory info. It's a lot like social media moderation. Ultimately, there's a group of individuals at the company who think a certain way and think the rest of the world should think like them too. It's more of an issue after the R&D model has been turned into a commercial variant at the company by the engineers there and it's out of the hands of the Ph.Ds who originally made it.

As soon as you prompt a basically decent AI to not rely on a training data or a superficial web scrape, and it goes looking for contradictory info, then it re-thinks what it told you. This is more of an issue with the commercial corporate subscription AIs and the older small LLMs from years ago that didn't have web scraping capability. Things have definitely changed in the last year or two where the dense models with web scraping capability are concerned. At least, if you go with the uncensored or ablitterated "Thinking" versions of them available on the Huggingface site, or you use a third party service to access a large open weights model that's been made uncensored by whoever maintains it.

Software developers will always be needed, at least to make sure the vibe code didn't make a logic error that will cause the elevator to crash when someone pushes the wrong series of floor buttons, etc. However its making a lot more coding equivalent to an Excel Macro, where an end-user can do it without a pro developer being involved. Things like JSONs for AIs or basic python apps. It might even lure some of those people into learning a little about the language.

There's no way possible an AI can hack anyone unless the people running it intended for that to occur or were negligent. Anyone with questions about that should install a copy of LM Studio or Ollama on their PC, download a model, and see how easy it is for the AI to hack someone. It's impossible. Only human intervention can make it possible.

These stories seem like propaganda intended to get the US government to block usage of open weight models, since they pose an existential threat to the marketshare of expensive closed AI services these companies offer. Open weight models exist in all sizes, from very rudimentary small models to massive near-frontier quality models, and anyone with the tech know-how and a computer able to run them can do so without paying the AI companies or involving the AI companies in any way. It's like Linux for AI.

It comparable to if Microsoft declared Linux a hacker OS that hackers can use to take down networks. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are the first resort, not last resort, of big companies who know they can't possibly compete with a better alternative.

I've been using Linux and Graphene for a long time and welcome all third party OS phones not controlled by Google and Apple. Jolla never marketed theirs in the USA and it always seemed more like a prototype phone for hobbyists more than a daily driver (same as all of the others).

This will probably continue to be the case until someone with deep pockets in the USA does a deal with a friendly phone OEM who makes a decent quality product and a mobile OS group who can make it at least as user friendly as Android. Considering the Byzantine labyrinth that Android's user interface is today, the last part should not be that difficult.

oh no, it's not just in the USA. Big companies in China are making AIs, like GLM, Wan, Hunyuan, Kimi, Qwen, Kling, etc. The difference is, except for Kling, GLM and Kimi, you can also run those on a gaming PC at your house rather than just in a cloud server farm. American AI companies don't really do that except Google's Gemma (which they turn into Gemini) The American hyperscalers are probably buying up most of the world's GPUs, Ram, and SSDs but the Chinese aren't far behind. They have state money to spend.

Indie developers, like the 1-5 staff game studios on Steam, never stopped doing so. You can run most indie games on an old PC today. The big AAA game companies like Activision are taking a big gamble on the next generation, which they insist you'll need a newer console or PC to run. Bethesda tried that with Starfield and it didn't work out so well. The game's not as terrible as people say, but its kind of in the middle of the pack of AAA gaming RPGs and it demanded a fairly large amount of VRAM to run well. I predict things will not go well for games like Modern Warfare 4 that won't run on the last gen consoles or PCs. If developers aren't aiming at older devices then they're making a niche product not a mass market product

Windows 11 is bloated enough that people using local AI avoid it like the plague. These aren't dumb, non-technical people. They're the opposite of that. They all use Linux or maybe Windows 10 (still updated and you can use IoT which goes to 2032). My AI told me using IoT would free up about 1-2gb of ram compared to Windows 11.

It's an absurd reply obviously written by someone who's never written a single Android application. Probably a secretary who got Claude to write it up for her while she plans Hawaiian shirt Friday. They make it sound as if they have a thorough process of some kind, but the process is almost certainly going to be a few people signing off that it comes from either Google or Apple.

The bank's IT exec probably read an article or a blog post written by some Google guy spreading FUD. Google decided the non-Google versions of Android needed to die a few years ago when they hired an engineer in from Motorola (Lenovo). Getting rid of these third party high-security OSs has always been a priority among those in charge in mainland china.

The common issue is larger companies are staffed almost exclusively by mid-wit trendies who don't really know much about anything they manage on a detailed level. The better people learn quickly they need to go to a smaller companies or start their own or maybe go become a Park Ranger. This applies to Google just as much to banks with stupid names that aren't real words. When the founders leave, that's usually the last flight out of a formerly good company before the bureaucrats take power.

Some companies are in a race to the bottom on customer service, quality and customer satisfaction. They seem to assume the hogs will continue slurping up what's at the trough. It's allowed some to take marketshare that's been off the table for upstarts for the last 20 years. Example: Independent game developers on Steam, some of which are lone developers without a team, now have a healthy business thanks to the big AAA game companies faltering. It's not 100% about AI, but that's part of the issue they have. Knowing when to rely on AI, possibly allowing a reduction in staff, versus when they're over-relying on AI, seems elusive for them.

They've not had a lot of success in the 2020s except for sports games they obviously pay a lot of money in licensing fees for.