- It's only low cost for general usage chat users. If you are using it for anything beyond that, you are paying or sitting in a long queue (likely both).
You may just be a little early to the renaissance. What happens when the models we have today run on a mobile device?
The nokia 6110 was released 15 years after the first commercial cell phone.
- You can't standardize the developer experience across different processors. I'm not trying to be negative here, just practical.
You are going to run into things like TSYS closing out batches every three days regardless of what happens.
The handling features for them and their customers thing is going to be a herculean task over even a couple different platforms. Not impossible, but it's big and you would do well to see what's out there before committing to a standard interface. Take a look at https://datacapsystems.com/ to see it done well.
Also, adding another layer like this, you better have an early plan to staff a support desk.
Oh, also, you are gateway, not a processor.
- I agree with them, your original post lacked clarity. I propose that the reason these types of conversations are less likely in person is because there is typically no log of exactly what was said and people tend to get defensive and narratives change. This makes it a pointless endeavor.
I would suggest, rather than wondering why people on the internet point things like this out, maybe wonder how many people in real life never bothered and just write you off.
- "This behavior is a function of the core AI technology we use, we are unable to resolve this issue with a standard software patch or update at this time.
For the time being this issue can be mitigated by not asking about seahorse emoji.
We are closing this support ticket as the issue is an inherent limitation of the underlying technology and not a bug in our specific implementation."
- https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...
>Claude sometimes thinks in a conceptual space that is shared between languages, suggesting it has a kind of universal “language of thought.” We show this by translating simple sentences into multiple languages and tracing the overlap in how Claude processes them.
- Funny, because one the libraries I was using at the time went hyper commercial (javafxports). Java burned me on two fronts at the very same time and lost me. Ymmv I guess. It's always a good time to try something new anyway... I also moved to kotlin on android and couldn't be happier with it, it's a clearly superior language.
- Yeah? Ncurses still a thing? I only ask because that's the only api name I remember from forever ago.
I worked on a mud on linux right after high school for awhile. Spent most of the time on the school's bsdi server prior to that though.
Then I went java, and as they got less permissive and .net got more permissive I switched at some point. I've really loved the direction C# has gone merging in functional programming idioms and have stuck with it for most personal projects but I am currently learning gdscript for some reason even though godot has C# as an option.
- https://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/visual%20s...
It's because you aren't looking at 20 year old EULA's
>3.4 Benchmark Testing. The Software may contain the Microsoft .NET Framework. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the Software to any third party without Microsoft’s prior written approval.
This person is not likely familiar with the history of the .net framework and .net core because they decided a long time ago they were never going to use it.
- It's phrased weirdly, but the op is describing an idealized status quo as would be seen from a corporate standpoint. It was meant to contradict itself and thus:
>We need to pick a lane.
I imagine op would likely agree it isn't actually that monotoned and this was done for rhetorical purposes.
- Given my skillset at age 22? Yeah, I'll take 1995. I was old enough to grow up hearing how great the world was going to be if I learned computer programming just to enter the job force at the start of the dotcom bubble burst. 1995 would have been a major upgrade.
Also, knocking that almost decade off my birthday would assure that I spent most of my adult life with the luxury of thinking that energy didn't have negative externalities that were being forced on later generations.
We had Chomsky-esq "any major world power is kind of fascist if you think about it" instead of literal talk by politicians about putting people in camps if they don't like your diet or country of origin.
TV was pretty bad I guess but music was great and I read more back then.
There was a lot of huffing and puffing about gang violence. I grew up on the street the local gang named themselves after and it only marginally touched my life at all.
Housing was dirt cheap, food was dirt cheap, gas was dirt cheap. There was undeveloped land everywhere around the city I live in and it gave a general sense of potential.
What exactly was so bad about the 90's?
- The world of Star Trek was fully post scarcity. Rich/poor were not things that existed.
They had to get through this before things got better: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Riots
- A quick look shows not much has been found CVE wise with godot, and not anything on the 4.x version of the engine. There is an interesting case of it being used to build a malware loader.
I've actually been playing with it a bit recently and have had a couple mysterious crashes in their ide. It's likely ripe fruit for a curious security researcher.
- I agree. If OpenAI isn't strategic to the US, that damn sure is Altman's current goal. The moment he can close the sale on "we have to get there before China" ad revenue won't be a concern any more.
I'd say it's a bit of a Hail Mary and could go either way, but that's as an outsider looking in. Who really knows?
- I think you missed the point entirely. You can't have security without thinking about it. You can have vague sense of security, which is the theater you are talking about.
Show me a company anywhere that can provide security without user thought and deliberate action. It's a fantasy to believe anything you don't have to think about isn't theater. Hell, if you aren't thinking about it, you're one of the actors in that theater.
- Those are the breaks though when catering to a large audience with wildly differing threat models. Do you throw away users that are looking for a vague sense of security so they run off somewhere else less secure because you lack some feature?
If you are just looking for "secure(TM)[X]", you are making a mistake somewhere anyway.
If your life or livelihood depends on it, you learn what the impact of every choice is and you painstakingly keep to your opsec.
Somewhere between the two user action becomes a necessity. You need to judge where that point is for you and take responsibility for it because nobody else can guarantee it.
- We need to start working on the premise that large corporations are different beasts than small businesses. I mean as a people of the world as a whole.
There is a tipping point somewhere and that is definitely up for conversation but we need to pick a point and start making sure regulation hits where it does good.
Frankly, the outcomes of both "regulate it" and "don't regulate it" have already both been captured by the biggest offenders to use as they wish.
- The AI is working perfectly for the citizen surveillance use case though. It will provide "reasonable" suspicion on anyone at any time.
We have been mired in a surveillance state for a long time now. They now will have the processing power to make sure nobody can keep their head down and slip through the cracks. I imagine it's going to be a rough century.
- Your takeaway presumes that all LLM interactions are monolithic, which is the opposite of what was being claimed if you take the other poster's comments about tool use into consideration. I have no real investment in this conversation though, so your proclamation of winning can stand as far as I'm concerned.
- They are processors and yes some their own gateway.
Billing is broadly part of merchant services and is largely done by the sales organization that sold the processing.
Of course there are companies that encompass all these and more like the acquiring bank.
If you came to this by looking at epoch's website, click the tab from "Billing" to "Merchant Solutions". The rest very clearly state they are a processor.
I really think most everyone misses the actual potential of llms. They aren't an app but an interface.
They are the new UI everyone has known they wanted going back as long as we've had computers. People wanted to talk to the computer and get results.
Think of the people already using them instead of search engines.
To me, and likely you, it doesn't add any value. I can get the same information at about the same speed as before with the same false positives to weed through.
To the person that couldn't use a search engine and filled the internet with easily answered questions before, it's a godsend. They can finally ask the internet in plain ole whatever language they use and get an answer. It can be hard to see, but this is the majority of people on this planet.
LLMs raise the floor of information access. When they become ubiquitous and basically free, people will forget they ever had to use a mouse or hunt for the right pixel to click a button on a tiny mobile device touch screen.