Despite being proprietary, 1Password still hasn’t had any fuckery that I am aware of. I have been tempted to switch to an open source solution many times but I think I’ll be parking right here for a few more years yet.
Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I did read about it long ago when it first came out: I thought one of the premises was that computer screens don't exist (or are rarely used), and people only talk to their computers (or AI assistants). To me, that makes no sense at all, because speech is a vastly less efficient form of information transfer that anything visual.
Yeah, it was fairly unrealistic. It was set in "near-future Los Angeles" and the skyline was often a prominent feature. The wardrobes and color palettes were sort of drab, 1970s, though.
Computer screens were downplayed a lot. Theodore did work at a screen to write his letters, although they were ultimately committed to real paper. "Samantha", his AI girlfriend OS, seldom appeared on a screen after her initial setup. He wore an earpiece, and he carried a little "flip box" with a camera in it, so that Samanatha could experience reality while riding in his pocket.
He essentially had full-time two-way verbal contact with Samantha. When he was lying in bed, he would converse with her, and his earpiece was always noticeable. She had no avatar, no image on-screen. (They actually recast "Samantha"'s voice in post-production.)
I think this aniconic treatment was helpful in reinforcing just how unreal Samantha was. She ends up leaving him and disappearing with all the other AIs. Yet, she never had a tangible presence to him at all.
But I believe that it was realistic enough in depicting a parasocial relationship between a fundamentally lonely guy and his "pet AI" system. Surely this sort of thing will happen all the time. It already does. Perhaps the unreal part was how he reverts to tangible human connection for the very ending of the film. Will it last for him?
I just dug my Vita out of a drawer last week and have been playing some portable ports of some PS3 games that I wanted to play but can’t hook up the PS3 for (ratchet and clank, sly cooper, god of war 1 and 2, and some other indie games).
Was shocked to discover the store is still functional. I bought the PS1 Armored Core games for it.
Love this thing. It really got done dirty in the market and with Sony’s support.
Tempted to jailbreak it and try to make some homebrew stuff.
The Vita homebrew scene is very mature and surprisingly active. "It's surprisingly easy to hack your 3DS" is a meme for good reason, but it holds even truer for the Vita.
In practice that's never been a problem for me. Work is delivered in functional units and segmented "sections" of code are basically useless on their own for the purpose of debugging.
I’ve been a rails developper my entire career and I’ve seen some sh*t with coffeescript monstrosities. I am so glad we moved away from that, and I won’t be going down that path again.
I'm more skeptical than most on the current wave of AI tech innovation.
However, believe it or not, humanity can collectively work on different things at the same time. And the people putting emoji generators in phones are probably not the people I would want doing cancer research. And many many things that we rely on today were not directly created by research in those topics and were born from innovation in other unrelated areas.
"It's what we've always done" is a classic non-argument against doing something. Is there an amount we could spend on something that essentially winds up being useless that you think would be bad? Do you not think there's a trade-off at some level about the sort of things people invest in?
That's not the argument I made. You were responding to an argument that "humanity can collectively work on different things at the same time," and "many things that we rely on today were not directly created by research in those topics and were born from innovation in other unrelated areas."
Your response was "You don't feel that the astonishing amount of resources poured into current consumer level AI products is different?"
To which I responded that no, I don't feel that the amount of resources poured into current consumer level AI products is different; it is the same as it has always been.
That is not the same as making an argument that that is how it should be.
Sure, that's not the point of what you said but it's the premise.
> We poured similarly large amounts of resources into hundreds of companies in the dotcom boom, crypto, and so on.
I don't agree with your ostensible implicit assumption that in this iteration of this cycle a) the economic and social costs are not consequential enough to care, (e.g. the social impact of how much easier scamming people is with these extremely capable base models,) b) the costs are comparable to those other things, (e.g. Goldman Sachs says we're looking at a 160% increase in data center energy usage driven by AI) and c) ignoring it will have the same negligible consequences that ignoring those other things did.
