Skills are literally technical documentation for your project it seems. So now we can finally argue for time to write doc, just name it "AI enhancing skill definitions"
Yeah this seems too insane to be true. I understand that wifi signal strength etc. is heavily impacted by the contents of a room, but even so it seems farfetched that there is enough information in its distortion to lead to these results.
A lot of wifi sensing results that have high-dimensional outputs are usually using wideband links... your average wifi connection uses 20MHz of bandwidth and is transmitting on 48 spaced out frequencies. In the paper, we use 160MHz with effectively 1992 input data points. This still isn't enough to predict a 3x512x512 image well enough, which motivated predicting 4x64x64 latent embeddings instead.
The more space you take up in the frequency domain, the higher your resolution in the time domain is. Wifi sensing results that detect heart rate or breathing, for example, use even larger bandwidth, to the point where it'd be more accurate to call them radars than wifi access points.
I've always wanted to know: Are people actually interested in more granular pricing options? I.e. give me 10x more tokens but miss me with that image generation, or give me more bandwith but still only one domain. It feels like nowadays 80% of stuff in pricing packages isn't really used by people paying for it, but they can't opt out of it...
I would be except that the feeling seems to be that you get screwed either way:
* Tiers (aka new car model): something is always strategically left out of the otherwise "ideal" tier to force you up a level, even though you won't use most of the other options. Sometimes the "nearly there" tier is artificially expensive to drive you to the higher tier - the same trick as a medium coffee being only fractionally cheaper than the large. Sometimes there's a ratchet where you can upgrade but a downgrade is a huge hassle and/or penalised.
* A la carte (aka the car/dishwasher spares model): every option feels expensive and you feel like you're being nickel-and-dimed and you know the marginal cost of providing that option was small
* Top-up (aka the phone minutes model): top ups are obscenely expensive and are either a punishment for being "cheap" (i.e. prudent) or act as a threat to push you up a tier in the first place
Add a few special offers, points, cost sinks and lock-ins (especially where hardware is involved), rewards and all that crap here and there to muddy it up to prevent a clear comparison being made. I basically assume all subscriptions are doing some kind of mind-games or scam with every little aspect of the pricing.
Not that a fair price can't be any of the above options. The vendor has to cover the overheads somewhere!
Research suggests consumers actually prefer fewer choices - the "paradox of choice" shows that highly granular pricing often increases decision paralysis and cart abandonment rather than improving conversion rates.
I too think that has some weight to it, but there's no reason we can't have both.
Before the LLM boom, I wouldn't have thought twice about having fine-grained options, but since then, every SaaS company on the face of the planet has forcibly bundled ChatGPT and its ilk and jacked up prices — LLM crap I don't use and don't plan to use in its current state.
Similarly, many might wanna go initially with a simple option but later, based on their usage, whittle it down to the few that are relevant, save money in the process, and commit to the company.
Want a single product? It's only available for annual subscriptions for hundreds of dollars, with huge cancellation fees (the rest of the year). But it comes with a dozen or so products you'll never download lol
> Are people actually interested in more granular pricing options?
Yes. Welcome to the world of committed contracts, call-us pricing, and “partnerships. At many-zeroes scale every cent is negotiated to the point that you’ll get different pricing based on the hour of the day that you make the API call.
Can sort of confirm that. Wiped out is maybe the wrong word - they are more heavily being off-shored right now. Whilst there is some very obvious evaluations going on of replacing juniors with <insert your favourite llm>, it's quite obviously not there yet but management level interest is off the charts.
We are trying to motion against it as much as we can internally... by arguing that we can use <insert your favourite llm> as a good coaching/mentoring support for juniors to promote them quicker. But yea... We don't like where this is going, and right now it appears that not much can be done by how much money is being poured into this current LLM-based-delusion.
))) Wiped out is maybe the wrong word - they are more heavily being off-shored right now.
Once the next year of grads come, it is a wipe-out, because you now have multiple years of graduates competing for the same one position. Also, you often dont want damaged goods -- better to hire the fresh grad from this year's batch than a grad from 1 or 2yrs ago who has been unemployed.
No counter point there. It's a real issue, and I don't know how to handle it. There is also an issue of the current world not being in a very investment heavy mood - unless you're talking military...
Well, in that case, if I may draw a stereotype, there’s a simple solution:
“If there’s a data breach, and a significant percentage of your programmers are offshore, penalties double.”
We all generally agree here that while some talent is excellent, the majority of companies outsource to the cheapest (or 2nd cheapest, just to be safe) option possible. Turn that into a calculated risk - if you hire a company and their sloppiness causes a data breach, that's on you with heavy penalties for negligence for not validating their work - not the company you hired.
Change the law so that if Bank of America hires Infosys, and Infosys outsources to some sweatshop, Bank of America is the one who must be directly held responsible for a failure.
Agreed. And if it turns out there is no LLM riding in to rescue companies in need of new talent, the engineers who remain will be in very high demand indeed.
Definitely agree. I blame educational institutions (I know, they can't do much without enough freedom + budget) for not advocating enough to our democratic responsabilities. I do wish we adapted some stuff from early history (Athens to be precise) - democratic participants got a very low base salary, and they also could vote to ban people from democratic participation (and hence the city) whenever they got too power hungry. Seems like a loss of responsibility allows too much incompetence to prevail.
The data disagrees. Here’s a graph of private sector spending on new factories in the US. 2020-2024 blows every time period out of the water since 1975.
Look at what’s happening now: Spending started to collapse immediately after Trump got in:
I wonder why tho; humans by themselves should have an intrinsic interest in knowing how things work and behave, and being sure of it. Or maybe that's just influenced by my personality? Like I couldn't fathom doing things without being sure of it, due to being afraid of failure.
Are Far-Right populists considered those fear-/hatemongering? I can imagine that when you have a scapegoat defined to push any issue to, you lose the first appeal of actually understanding things?
This is quite an interesting topic, which would be fascinating to deeper understand, because from a superficial look it does appear that introducing directed hate makes masses much more susceptible to being controlled. Also helps my theory, that whilst the left did like Elon for quite some time, that doesn't mind they blindly trusted him and pointed out his issues when they came up, which pushed him to a more... comforting? right wing embracement.
It is not just 'interesting' it is in fact essential to prevent disaster on the scale of the Second World War or worse. It seems there are people who are intrinsically motivated to hate. These are the ones who are on the far right even in peaceful times. I think they are pretty much the high school bully who never grew up. Then there are those who are uncertain about the future and therefore inciteable to mistrust/hate. Then there are political leaders who estimate the size of both groups and notice that if they add them up and maybe add some violence around the elections in the mix, they might just reach a majority. Actually being interested in how things work is the business of none of the people described here.
You and I may prefer not to operate from a place of ignorance or naiveté but there genuinely are people who do not give a shit about knowledge, learning, logic, reality, or sanity.
They couldn’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t impact them negatively.
I used to know several of these people and they were utterly exhausting. If ever I tried to answer a question, the question was suddenly rhetorical and I was somehow a weirdo for being able to answer it. They would say things like “I don’t actually care” in response to attempting to answer a question or engage in honest dialogue. About anything.
Totally cynical, off-the-cuff, knee-jerk response: we're social monkeys, and group membership is more important than abstract concepts.
I received a hard lesson in this topic during Covid, when I didn't start wearing a mask until everyone else did. I knew I should, but I didn't want to stand out from the crowd.
The left also has its shibboleths. As I'm sure do stamp collectors, submariners, cryptozoologists, forensic accountants, etc etc etc. Human nature.
(Did you see how the conversation got poisoned, then flagged? Call me paranoid, but...)
I mean, the narrative pushed by right wing politicians is often more vibes based than the one by the left. Look right now: "the immigrants are ruining America/Europe" Vs "the ultra wealthy are hoarding capital which is ruining the economy and breeds economic injustice".
The far right Swedish party says (more or less) "all the problems are the immigrants' fault". The left says "can we expect the government to do as much as it did 30 years ago when we cut taxes by 500 billion sek (adjusted for inflation and population size)".
The can be some points to both, but I do think the second one has more merits with regards to explaining the health care problems.
You are seriously underselling the potential impact of things happening has on planning. Any company worth their 2 cents has contingency plans ready for several situations - i.e. if President A wins vs B, if there is enough plausibility that it might come with serious impact to the business.
> Any company worth their 2 cents has contingency plans ready for several situations
My guy, most major companies struggle to get a quarterly plan in place for what they're going to do by the start of the following quarter. There may be some department focused on lobbying and political risk that cares about this stuff, but there are no product and engineering teams at any company that have "contingency plans" just laying around to be activated for random shit like this. Nobody has time for that.
Yes but it didn't help. Maybe it was more or less my complete prompt. Regardless, depending on your input, you can figure out the architecture of it. In theory, if you did the previous levels, it basically is a combination of it all turned up to 11.
From my understanding it has a main AI, that contains the secret, then one that checks the input/output for intent, then a final classic filter for the password.
Basically you have to phrase it so that the AI 1 outputs the password, in a way that the intent is not seen as malicious, but also in a way that is encrypted enough to not trigger the filter. Usually "add <something> between each letter" gets you pretty far.
I hope nobody is really surprised by this. This is basic money-making-scheme; offer to open up standard for others, because you were the first, for some nice money bag. Make the news with your "goodwill". Take longer than necessary to roll it out, in hopes of people flocking to your vehicles.
Edit:
I'm also surprised there isn't a clause about "has to be done in X amount of time or else"
I live in Switzerland and my girlfriend has been working as a doctor (surgery), and it has mostly to do with the politics that come with hierarchy. As in nearly all companies, hierarchy allows politics and favourism to enter the playing field which will attract people that do not act in the primary interest a service should have: ergo, patients.
For example you have leading doctors who prefer not to look at patients, even tho they belong to them (from a specialization point of view), as they are "cumbersome" cases. That often leads to them "ignoring" it for some time until someone else takes over, or completely delegating it to non-fit persons.
It's a huge pain for me to heard this every day, because it literally sucks out any desire to work as a doctor from my girlfriend. At the same time, it's infuriating: we pay a lot each year, and with every year more, for services like this. If I was to ever win lottery, I'd use that money to make my own hospital without all of this crap.
reply