I'm extremely interest the general feeling and views societies had in the past: how they perceived the present and the future, as a whole.
Objectively life has become better and more comfortable for the vast majority of humans since then (Hans Rosling does a beautiful job of exploring this).
But I do think that perceptions and feelings matter, and even though material wellbeing is a prerequisite to that, so is also the general feeling and view that those around you hold, and in many ways I feel we've gone backwards in that.
These GitHub orgs have explicitly opted in and configured the checks, so harassing the developers in those organizations is exactly what the org owners wanted :)
It's a slightly different flavor of the same thing.
VS Code is an amazing tool that's getting huge adoption because of how awesome it is, and how open source and community centric it is, etc. They've gotten a lot of mindshare and dev love, that's the embrace bit.
The next step is the set of closed source addons. Have you noticed that a lot of the new VS Code features are now in addons that are under a different license. This includes the new remote dev and python tooling. Still free to use and awesome tools, of course, but fully under MS exclusive and controlled. That's the extend.
I don't know what the longer-term plan is. I'm hoping that it won't lead to an extinguish. But if that's what they want, then they could e.g. cripple the open source version, moving all their dev effort into a closed-source, Azure/Github only web environment. Who knows?
I don't see what post was moved, this is exactly EEE, adopt an open strategy, extend it with proprietary extensions, don't let competition use those extensions, extinguish competition by not being able to interface with your proprietary extensions while having created an expectation from the user for them to be available.
I thought OpenAI was originally supposed to be some kind of for-the-good, non-profit institution studying AI and its safe use in particular with an effort to make it more accessible and available to all through more open collaboration. This is cool research, sure; but what happened to making models available for use by others instead of just through some opaque APIs?
Maybe I'm just remembering wrong or conflating OpenAI with some other entity? Or maybe I bought too much of the marketing early on.
No, they did some good, they've done a few things to personally help me. They created OpenAI Gym which is a great help when doing reinforcement learning research and defined the standard interface for reinforcement learning libraries for a generation. But they not longer maintain OpenAI Gym.
They also created Spinning Up [0], one of the best resources I've found for learning reinforcement learning. Their teaching resources are detailed but relatively brief and are focused on implementing the algorithms, even if some of the "proofs" are neglected. But they no longer maintain Spinning Up.
So yes, originally they were for-the-good, but lately I've noticed them moving away from that in more ways than one. It seems they learned one cool trick with language sequence modelling, and they have a lot of compute, and this is all they do now.
That was the marketing message. They became for-profit in 2019 and took investment from Microsoft. Many people were skeptical before that because the main investors were mostly known for for-profit ventures.
I remember Sam Altman, when asked “How will you make money?”, reply they would ask the AI. I thought it was a fairly creative answer.
It turns out, however, that the way they plan on earning money is much less creative, and more run-of-the-mill SaaS monetization. In a way, I like to believe that a real AI would also end up with such a mundane strategy, as it’s the most likely to actually make them profitable and return money to investors.
OpenAI was founded in 2015. In 2015 Google was AI and AI was Google. There was legitimate concern that one American corporation was going to dominate AI. OpenAI was created to challenge that dominance and let "AI benefit all of humanity".
In the meantime China and Chinese companies have catched up. Turns out the fear that one company and one country dominating AI was overblown.
Maybe the OpenAI founders feel that the original goal has been fulfilled because AI is no longer dominated by the US and Google.
You're remembering correctly. OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit in 2019, took about $1 billion from Microsoft (there has been speculation that this was mostly in the form of Azure credits), and announced that Microsoft would be their preferred partner for commercializing OpenAI technologies: https://openai.com/blog/microsoft/
They very transparently transitioned to a for profit company. It doesn't seem like they are aggressively profit oriented though: I am a paying customer of OpenAI beta APIs and the cost to use the service is very low. It also solves several classes of tough NLP problems. I used to sell my own commercial NLP library - glad I gave up on the years ago.
Emailing patches is a classic git flow, used e.g. by the linux kernel. Git even includes a command to format emails and send them. Nothing wrong with it!
Yep, but there will be no variance in timing from the end user's perspective (regardless of what payload they send to E3) because neither encryption results nor timing data get returned to the end user.
You can't even use Linux on Intel Macs properly, no chance it'll work on the M1 anytime soon. The kernel might boot in some form, but last time I checked, even the SSD wasn't working on Intel Macs under Linux.
It runs well if you have the time, patience and expertise. There's no fundamental technical barriers. It's purely a matter of enough development resources being committed to the project. I think Apples recent moves would motivate more developers to work on it.
Now I'm curious: why? Not that I don't believe you, but I'm wondering what is the reason? It's not intuitively clear why gloves would make it more dangerous, even knowing that it is.
If a glove comes into contact with a spinning blade, there is a good chance it will pull the rest of the glove, and the hand within it, right into the path of the blade.
Speaking as a person who lost half a thumb to a table saw ...
the difference in your analogy emerges when someone wants/needs you to carve out something more intricate, and you say "it's not my job to be able to do this without gloves".
Objectively life has become better and more comfortable for the vast majority of humans since then (Hans Rosling does a beautiful job of exploring this).
But I do think that perceptions and feelings matter, and even though material wellbeing is a prerequisite to that, so is also the general feeling and view that those around you hold, and in many ways I feel we've gone backwards in that.