Do you plan to get paid from Argentine customers? If not, maybe you can consider opening a US entity through Stripe Atlas, get a quasi-bank US account through Mercury and send the received amount to Argentina via SWIFT.
No, my ucstomers would be in the US and Europe. This is a SaaS for developers. Create a US entity through Atlas is exactly what I want to avoid. I'd prefer something simpler, where I can get paid (even if they get a high cut like 5%), and then send that money to Paypal or a bank account.
Anthropic has a lot of issues. I tried paying them and my card is rejected without explanation.
I tried different cards, addresses, even a VPN. Nothing works. After googling a bit I found on Reddit that this is very common. I don't thinks their investors are happy with them not accepting customers.
I have an important account on Twitter where I publish manually posts, thoughts, links, announcement, etc. I tried to look for a way to crosspost to Threads and Bluesky automatically, but I couldn't find anything. Any suggestions?
I found Yup but I don't want to change the place where I originally post. I want to keep posting on Twitter using the web interface, and then automatically replicate that in Bluesky and Threads. I think it may not be possible due to the lack of Threads API.
For me it was 2003 to 2010. I said this multiple times, and it is that I'm working on a essay about qhy Internet was more enjoyable back then.
But sometimes I think the only reason (or the main reason) is that I was a teenager. It isn't about internet, it is about the user and how they saw the worldwide at that time...
Great summary. My dad had only one or two jersey when he was a kid / teenager, because without sponsors they were all the same (maybe minor details)?
Now I am usually one of those who get a new jersey every new season, or maybe two if I like both home and away designs. There were years when I didnt get any, but those were the exceptions.
In which aspect is this better than a human?* It's slower, energy-wise more expensive (a human with just a sandwich can work for hours), less preciss and error-prone. As a Manager, I would prefer a person that I can blame (corporative and legally) if something goes wrong, that being responsible (legally, mainly!) if this robot makes a huge mistake.
* From a business point of view. This is an incredible techinal achievement, I don't want to sound like this is not impressive. But it seems that every new development seems to focus on how they can replace humans or be better at or do things that we usually do.
Selling one product and using the profits from that to create a second product is how businesses work. So if/when Tesla/anybody is selling their humanoid robot and those profits pay for going to feed the NVIDIA supercomputer that they're using to train models to run on robots, and to fund development of robot 2.0, that's exactly where we'll be.
> As a Manager, I would prefer a person that I can blame (corporative and legally) if something goes wrong, that being responsible (legally, mainly!) if this robot makes a huge mistake.
Might you not prefer working with a colleague who brings skills and knowledge to the work environment, understands the business, is motivated to improve the operation, and can respectfully discuss the challenges that you face as a team?
Someone who, if treated fairly and with respect, may help build success as your co-worker and perhaps even community as your neighbour?
In exchange for a decent wage and an affordable sandwich, of course.
the robot can work 24/7 7 days a week, and if you consider paying the human employee at the end of the month and not just providing a sandwich per shift then the energy costs are not that high.
How much time the robot can work without recharging / maintenance? What's the throughput for the tasks? In the demo it only carried one object and it took it several seconds to move it. A person could do that faster, better, etc. It's real nice, but if you can convince a factory owner to replace people with this you are the best salesman in the world.
I'm not a salesman but I imagine if you're trying to sell them to a factory owner, you'd play up the problems with the worst humans. Humans come in hungover, still drunk, or not at all. And don't call in. They complain about every. little. thing. "Why do I have to do it this way?" "I don't want to do it like that".
They take long bathroom breaks (and think you don't notice, because they think you're stupid.) They steal. They fight with each other and need managing aka children's therapist for their bullshit. Which never stops. You can stop wasting your time dealing with the "human touch" and get back to what you really want - making more widgets so you can sell more widgets so you can make enough money for that kitchen remodel/winter/summer home/yacht/European vacation/jet.
Fire them and replace them with RobotWorker. It doesn't get drunk and cause fights or HR incidents because it can't keep it in it's pants. They'll work all through the night and through every holiday, without the same trouble of having a second and third shift. You don't need to follow OSHA with these things, though you still don't want to damage them - there's a support contract but that's unnecessary downtime for you, and you don't want that. Still, you can just replace a robot's arm. Just imagine the lawsuits when that happens to a human employee.
Not sure if this helps someone, but I joined a new German company a few months ago, the type of company that has a great culture and everyone wants to work for (when I announced it on Linkedin my stats increased and I received a lot of invitations).
Anyway, on-boarding was awful and codebase is terrible. For the first four months I have been struggling, suferring, getting frustrated, and everything impacting my life outside work (weekends, sleeping, etc)
Then I realized. This is just a job. What is the worst it could happen? Getting fired and these people thinking I'm an idiot? I can live with that. I won't probably meet them again (perks of remote) and I could find another job down the line. And that helped me.
What you do at work and how are you seen at work, as long as you are responsible, shouldn't be that important. Leave it at work and try to enjoy your life. Don't carry it with you, especially when it is a position where you don't have much control.
Search in the internet worked because people wanted to generate content to attract people to display ads or any other reason, but they wanted to attract people.
If now my content is going to be ingested and shown by a LLM or AI agent, what's the purpose to give it for free? I know it won't happen, but I would love if this type of agents have to pay to show a summarization of another website. It's only fair when done in mass like this.
I publish my content "for free" because I want to spread knowledge and information, or promote a topic or interest I enjoy, and monetization has never been a priority for me. I know that I am not alone. The urge to create does not depend on a need for money. I am happy for my websites to be picked up by Perplexity or ChatGPT because I want more people to see/learn/hear about the things I care about.
If someone only creates for money, only publishes on the web to get people to look at advertisements, well... I think there are plenty of other people who don't feel that way that will fill the void left behind in their departure.
To me it seems weird so many people think the internet only exists because advertising props it up. The internet existed and was a wonderful place before advertising became widespread, and most services and websites will continue to exist after advertising is gone (if that ever happens). What encourages people to believe in some sort of great collapse?
I said "or any other reasons" because I was in a hurry. Internet existed way before ads, I agree, but even then you wanted people to visit your site to see what you wrote. Maybe to become an expert in a topic, maybe to feel better, but you want people to know who did it. That's why websites used to have a webmaster and info about that particular person.
If people stop visiting websites because LLM give them what they want, websites will stop existing. Don't believe me? Check how many "fansites" exist now about topics compared to ten years ago, when there weren't social networks. They have been replaced by influecners with huge followers on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and more. The same will happen.
What you describe in your last paragraph is still an evolution, not an extinction or disappearance. Fan/stan culture is absolutely huge on social media, where it has thrived, with single-person-ran stan accounts becoming as big or bigger than the heyday of blogging or fansites. So I just think we disagree on some foundational level.
The first is taxation. Academia uses this. So we'll be fine there.
The second is donations and altruism. This includes Wikipedia, people who just want to share their ideas (like I'm doing now), Stack Exchange, etc. So we'll be fine there too, though this only works for low-budget stuff. Note that credit isn't necessary here; Wikipedia editors are rarely acknowledged, for example. But I do think credit is good, when possible (i.e. not for every single training source the LLM uses; ChatGPT Search is a good and practical way to give credit).
The third is to privatize the goods, for example, by creating copyright. LLMs won't get rid of this. They're not allowed to fully replicate a piece of text, since that is copyright infringement. So if you're getting people to pay for an exact or almost exact piece of text (e.g. a full book, a full newspaper article), you won't be affected there.
But if your business model would be affected by people summarizing your stuff, then yeah you won't be protected there. For example, if people would rather read a summary of your article or book rather than pay you for the full version. But this isn't new to LLMs. How many people jump straight to the comments to read the summaries instead of reading the article? How many people absolutely refuse to pay for paywalls? How many people block ads (I'm treating ads as a form of payment here)? It's possible to expand copyright to also cover things like summarization (i.e. copyrighting facts), but this is rather dangerous.
- The clickbait, SEO-optimized garbage that today fills 95% of search results could entirely disappear as a business model because they have nothing interesting to offer and the LLM company won't pay for low quality content.
- The average Joe blogging on their website won't go anywhere because they aren't profiting from it to begin with. And the LLM linking back to the page with a reference would be a nice touch. Same logic applies to things like Open Libra and projects that are fundamentally about open information and not about driving ad revenue.
But, on the other hand, I don't think LLM-based search will fundamentally change anything. Ad revenue will get in the way as always and the LLM-based search will start injecting advertisements in its results. How other companies manage to advertise on this new platform will be figured out. What LLM-based search does is give Microsoft and others the opportunity to take down Google as the canonical search engine. A paradigm shift, but not one that benefits the end user.
> A paradigm shift, but not one that benefits the end user.
That's too neutral; the result is worse for the end user. It will be impossible to distinguish injected ads, unlike with Google. Furthermore, as it gives a much more direct "answer", people will also trust it more than a website linked to on Google.
Well the whole point of this product is to link back to websites. There’s no necessary link between the text and the links, which are chosen after the fact from an index. That’s different from traditional search engines, where links are directly retrieved from the index as part of ranking.
Honestly, for any serious query, the links serve mostly so you can double-check the AI. That's a useful function however.
I think we're going to see even fewer site visits as a consequence of AI search engines. The internet's ad-based funding model is going to dry up further, but the impact will be disproportionate. It'll be a few years til we see where the cards land.
It would make sense for peoppe to be able to "connect" things like the newspaper they subscribe to to their LLM agent. The LLM would essentiay be a new frontend.
GenAIScript is a scripting language that integrates LLMs into the scripting process using a simplified JavaScript syntax. It allows users to create, debug, and automate LLM-based scripts.
which ruins my hope that it was a JS library I could drop into other things and work together with other JS libraries. Although I guess can implement some sort of bridge to it to allow that, why not a full js library not sure.
I am working on a API to generate avatars/profile pics based on a prompt. I tried looking for train my own model bt I think it's a titanic task and impossible to do it myself. Is my best solution use an external API and then crop the face for what was generated?
The simplest commercial product for finetuning your own model is probably Adobe firefly, although there’s no API access support yet. But there are cheap and only slightly more involved options like Replicate or Civit.ai. Replicate has solid API support.
You can use a few controlnet templates and then whatever model you like and consistently get the posture correct. The diffusion plugin for Krita is a great playground for exploring this.
reply