> being open is not compatible with the Chinese culture.
Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world. Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc. No real restrictions on duping products, so execution often becomes the winning ticket. That's all pretty open and good for consumers.
You could argue they won't allow SOTA models to be exported but it doesn't really have anything to do with Chinese culture not being compatible with openness.
> Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world.
that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open - they know full well that anything made publicly available would be cloned/copied within days.
it is not only a part of the competition common in all countries, there are unique reasons in China - millions of graduate engineers join workforce every single year, there are not that many projects they can work on. starting copying & cloning some existing stuff even at someone's own cost is a pretty effective way to get into the game.
> Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc.
There is this old Chinese saying "Teach your apprentice and your own ruin follows" (教会徒弟饿死师傅), that has been telling a completely different story for thousands of years. When they don't even want to hand over tech know-hows to their own apprentice, why would anyone be expecting them to have the desire to share it publicly?
You can find Chinese sayings for almost any position. It's orientalism to reduce modern Chinese society/culture/economy to proverbs and sayings.
You say that you're Chinese so there's no such stereotyping involved, but actually Chinese people commit this sin against themselves all the time.
己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人
"wishing to stand, one helps others stand; wishing to succeed, one helps others succeed"
> that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open
But the AI labs _are_ often being open. And cloning stuff more generally doesn't really require OSS anyway. Product features are easily cloned in most cases, without any secret knowledge.
I don't use gmail but often get an LLM to write certain emails. The benefit is that it can pull in context and typically one-shot the email without me prompting it at all.
For example, a tenant emails me about some issue relating to a specific property. It can go through my leases, find the right one, check other emails to see I ordered a new appliance to that specific address, track shipping/install, all that, then reply appropriately.
I think your example is just customer support and not something that requires a personal touch anyway. Like your tenant doesn't care about your tone in that context, just the information. (It does seem like email is the sub optimal channel for this task anyway).
But if you're writing to someone with the intention of communicating personally, using AI anyway shows a lack of effort.
You are incorrect. There, now we've both made unsupported assertions. Care to provide any evidence for your position?
For what it's worth, when I provide a Pangram link it's because I can already tell something is AI and I'm attempting to provide objective third-party confirmation so the conversation doesn't just degrade into me asserting that I have superior taste to you.
It's hard to say how much it contributed to the pre-eminence of modern-day China. But overall the rise of China surely dominates anything that's happened in the last year. No other nation even comes close to vying for hegemony with the US. We could have another full-on Vietnam-esque quagmire in Iran and it wouldn't even be a blip in comparison.
Really depends on your background doesn't it? You could have convictions, be sanctioned, have visa problems, or all kinds of things that are not easily solvable.
Indeed, and this guy's personality seems a little "difficult" which might make the interview process short. I've known people with insane skills who have such weird personalities that they never get hired. Doing remote bug bounty stuff is a blessing for them.
5.5 Pro has been leveraged to solve at least two previously-unsolved Erdos problems [1]. Whether these were unsolved due to being seriously untried by humanity, or because of their difficulty, isn't relevant; no human proved able to answer them, while our synthetic intelligence systems did.
In my personal life, I have leveraged these systems to design code that I don't believe I would ever have been able to designed. And, because no other human may attempt to, this means the same thing: That no human would have been able to do it. Things like reverse-engineering niche APIs and digging into binary files to diagnose weird format conversion issues.
True! But calculators are already priced in. LLMs now unlock a whole new class of problems that we can automate the solutions to; what we're seeing is the markets trying to figure out how to price that.
Sounds like you're kind of just talking your book though. Person who makes accessible sites suggests you need an accessible site. Blind people aren't the only ones who might need modifications. You could have an infinitely long list of adjustments for all kinds of disabilities, and tell me I'm lazy for not doing each of them. Why are blind people special?
You are lazy for not doing accessibility adjustments, because accessibility isn't for blind users. It's for the deaf ones, the ones with poor eyesight, the ones with mental deficiencies, the ones with motor issues like Parkinson's, the ones browsing your site shitfaced at 4AM, and so on and so on.
Accessibility isn't a checklist to cover your ass for a percentage of the population: it's for everyone. It literally makes your website less shit. You slapping an aria-label doesn't fix things.
Every moment you spend doing accessibility is a moment you spend not doing other things. You could argue it has a high RoI to do accessibility, fine, but that doesn't make it lazy _not_ to do it. Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.
Picking subsets of customers to focus on is a totally standard part of running a startup or company in general, so this is not really news or any kind of threat.
You might as well tell me the suburban moms are not going to buy my developer tool because I've personally slighted them with the branding. Why would I care? I made my decisions knowing this.
In fact ditching low RoI customers is incredibly common and good startup advice.
You're just expressing a normative view here, it's not very interesting or informationally-dense. You care about accessibility more than I do. That doesn't make not doing it 'crap'.
Yeah, thats explicitly what I'm saying so I'm not sure it needs repeating. That has very little to do with it being lazy though, is the point.
We were already implicitly discussing RoI when we were talking about 'legal consequences' above. This is how people decide between alternatives, generally.
The problem is people at large companies creating these AI models, wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it, but these large companies also want to keep copyright protection intact, for their regular business activities. They want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for essentially eliminating copyright for their specific purpose and convenience, when copyright has virtually never been loosened for the public’s convenience, even when the exceptions the public asks for are often minor and laudable. If these companies were to argue that copyright should be eliminated because of this new technology, I might not object. But now that they come and ask… no, they pretend to already have, a copyright exception for their specific use, I will happily turn around and use their own copyright maximalist arguments against them.
>wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it
Learning from copyrighted content is legal - for both humans and AI. If Meta is in hot water for anything, it's piracy and/or storage of copyrighted material.
Huh? Then that's even more straightforward, and your comment from late 2022 doesn't hold up at all. So, unless you're specifically going out of your way to break copyright law, inference is totally fine.
I think it's more that the little guy gets the book thrown at them while the rich bitch gets a slap on the wrist. This is widespread, and is BAD regardless of your personal opinion on copyright.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make a win for the copyright lobby a win for the little guy. If anything, pro-copyright decisions are decidedly _bad_ for the little guy.
Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world. Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc. No real restrictions on duping products, so execution often becomes the winning ticket. That's all pretty open and good for consumers.
You could argue they won't allow SOTA models to be exported but it doesn't really have anything to do with Chinese culture not being compatible with openness.
reply