It’s a request, and requests may be denied or ignored.

If they cared, they wouldn’t post publicly or the service would not allow that message to embedded.

An enforceable request is called a “demand”, and unless you’re actually capable of enforcing it, it is in fact still just a request.

It would have been polite to honor the request, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Don’t make public posts if you don’t want them publicly displayed.

To paraphrase, you're not wrong, you're just a jerk.

“Please don’t show people my public post” is an absurd request to make.

Why can the post even be embedded at all in this case? If Gizmodo was forced to screenshot it to circumvent that you might have a point.

> imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined.

This happens all the time though, and it's expected it might happen when you do it.

I live nearby a couple of lakes within a nice little forest, me and some friends found a spot a couple of summers ago a bit out from the trails which we improved to have a fire pit, some log benches, built a mobile sauna, and left notes that its intended to be used publicly. We knew that at some point it'd be found, and potentially ruined. It kinda happened, someone broke the sauna, we didn't feel we were owed anything since we decided to make it public, we knew the dangers.

it was just the result of me trying to express the loss of respect for public spaces / content and content in as little words as possible I could go on forever writing an entire book about changes in the definition of public and private and how disrespecting such spaces / content is how we end up with only powerful people having such things while the rest lose it entirely as they fight over whatever remains.

If I host an event at a public park and hang up a sign "no journalists allowed, no telling anyone about this event, it's our little secret" I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to be honored. I wouldn't be offended to see that reported in the local paper. Quite the opposite.

as I tried to imply, it's about being respectful, all there is to it.

It’s public or it’s not public.

boiling things down to a binary output has always turned out great I presume

Nah, I think the point is that if you do something deliberately in public, be it social media or something tangible in the real world, you relinquish control over its usage.

If you don’t like this, then you can either try to restrict things to an extent e.g. by obscurity, like posting a YouTube video as unlisted, or building your fireplace somewhere public but remote or hidden, or you keep things enforceably private, like a private online group, or building on someone’s land.

in the end it is about intent and being respectful of that intent here.

These things happened, are notable, and even (or especially) embarrassing things should be remembered for history.

A compromise would be to have screenshotted and crossed out names.

it's simply a way to express and expand meaning of a statement without having to write an entire essay backing such statement.

Wait until it’s you for some arbitrary reason.

After the first few some responsibility begins shifting to those still believing him.

That clears up nothing.

> Streaming and especially season drops flip that constraint.

How does completely dropping a season flip that? Some shows with complicated licensing and rights have caused entire seasons to be dropped from a given streaming service and it’s very confusing when you finish season N and go right into season N+2.

When I say drop, I am referring to releasing in one big drop, not dropping off the platform.

As I explained, that model can permit a binge of content which grants heavy context carryover.

I hadn’t realized the meaning of the word “drop” changed completely, hence my confusion.

Except when, for some reasons, the recent trend is to release an episode per week even though they have all of them filmed and could just drop a whole season.

As a binge watcher, this irks me to no end; I usually end up delaying watching episode 1 until everything is released, and in the process forget about the show for half a year or something, at which point there's hardly any conversation happening about it anymore.

That costs money.

If LLMs are that capable, then why are AI companies selling access to them instead of using them to conquer markets?

The same question might be asked about ASML: if ASML EUV machines are so great, why does ASML sell them to TSMC instead of fabbing chips themselves? The reality is that firms specialize in certain areas, and may lose their comparative advantage when they move outside of their specialty.

Because the LLMs have only got this good 3 months ago, and market dynamics mean they can't hold them in house without their competitors getting ahead.

I would guess fear of losing market share and valuable data, as well as pressure to appear to be winning the AI race for the companies' own stock price.

i.e competition. If there were only one AI company, they would probably not release anything close to their most capable version to the public. ala Google pre-chatgpt.

I’m not sure that really answers the question? Or perhaps my interpretation of the question is different.

If (say) the code generation technology of Anthropic is so good, why be in the business of selling access to AI systems? Why not instead conquer every other software industry overnight?

Have Claude churn out the best office application suite ever. Have Claude make the best operating system ever. Have Claude make the best photo editing software, music production software, 3D rendering software, DNA analysis software, banking software, etc.

Why be merely the best AI software company when you can be the best at all software everywhere for all time?

Im waiting for people to realise that software products are much more than just lines of code.

Getting sick and tired of people talk about their productivity gains when not much is actually happening out there in terms of real value creation.

Just because you don't see it or refuse to believe people doesn't make you right and them liars. Maybe you're just wrong.

Or maybe I’m just right and you’re just slow at seeing what other people can see.

I’m not a SWE either fyi. Therefore I have no vested interest.

I don’t think it will be too long before the pendulum swings back towards “real people who actually know the subject”. At that point, I might feel bad for everyone who coasted on AI.

The damage has already been done.

Much like how if you stop going gym you lose muscle mass, the same happens with knowledge and understanding with the brain.

People who have learned how to learn can learn more. People who only used AI never learned how to learn.

Using AI is a different skill set that allows you to dive into topics that you otherwise aren’t ready for. I just used it to do a task that would have taken me a couple days of reading up on a different software system that I wasn’t already familiar. Now I have no need to ever really know that system, is that a good thing or not? I don’t know yet. But I had to know lots of basics about how those systems work in general to get the AI to do the thing I wanted, snd it wasn’t a one shot prompt, rather it was an iterative prompt process.

I touch LaTeX once every 10 years. I'm not going to learn it because I'm not fond of debugging macro processors and have never had a good experience with the language where you have to invoke a stew of packages that will mysteriously stomp on each other. I generated a script the other day to prepare a document in the format I needed. It mostly worked, but the LLM also stumbled on the packages until I could coax a working solution out of it. They're good for these problems where you only need shallow knowledge.

Most of us who touch latex make our one great template and forget it, or at least we try to just work off what is given to us.

You still need "knowledge" to use AI, but AI can handle details. Students relying on AI to pass classes means they might not ever obtain the knowledge they really need to use AI well, or maybe I'm cynical and they actually learn the cursory knowledge they need to use AI during the test because otherwise they wouldn't be able to use AI.

I hope there are at least some classes on using AI to solve problems though, like in a domain. "Using AI to boost programming" should be a CS course at least that you can take after you learn programming the manual way.

The valuation is based on them hypothetically selling the same quantities that the hackers gave away at their retail prices, which of course no one believes they would ever actually sell that much.

Well sure, no one thinks LLMs invented bad writing, but they do copy the style.