> if the AI can't write it right, the AI probably can't fix it
This doesn't match my experience at all. Frontier models are quite good at finding the cause of and fixing bugs, if they have access to the right tooling. LLMs can easily fix bugs that they introduced with the level of detail in the average bug report.
ARM is here. Apple and Qualcomm and a whole host of chinese companies make PC-tier processors that aren't AMD/Intel/x64
It's possible people get pissed off enough they buy those instead. Or simply buy them because that's what's available, and it therefore becomes The Norm.
It’s not a moral question at all. They’re credits, they expire, choose to continue to do business with them or not. They don’t owe anyone forever credits.
No, there is a clear and explicit "Download URL" in 2 clicks which any 5th-grader/grandpa who has used the web knows to look for and click.
We must not encourage useless comments like these particularly when it comes to publications from NIST. NIST is one of the best sources for technical information. While they have traditionally focused on govt. agencies and experts, they have also majorly expanded their offerings targeted at general public/small businesses/solopreuners/etc.
Your reply suggests that you haven't grasped the underlying point being made.
Most (all?) people today spend at least a couple of hours everyday surfing the web on all sorts of devices. Hence they have seen all sorts of Web UI (good/bad/ugly) and thus know how to navigate them to get to what they want.
Hence to harp on website navigation is foolish. Particularly when the site is actually pretty good design focusing on information and not UI fluff.
You’re just confirming my point with more speculation.
What you’re defending is poor UX that would be easily improved by a download button, that a majority of other such sites what’s include, for obvious reasons. It’s a site for accessing documents ffs!
You are just repeating yourself without understanding my point.
It is not poor UX to not have a download button. That just became popular due to mobile devices. For document-centric sites it is better to have a uniform way of locating/downloading documents under a "Documentation" section which is what is done here.
TNG actors had more input than you'd think, Frakes and Spiner both directed episodes and films, it was Spiner's idea that he have an evil twin brother instead of that episode featuring a robot lover.
On the one hand, this would (without automation) not be possible financially or temporally in the modern world with the amount of money a church now brings in.
On the other hand, was the work not the point? The dedication to do this on behalf of one's deity?
It almost feels just short of having a machine pray on your behalf, so you don't have to. Claude or GPT perhaps?
The demand for shovels in a gold rush is high, but, once we realize the amount of gold available isn't that much, the demand for shovels at any price falls off a cliff?
In this analogy, gold would be compute. So the more accurate analogy, would be that there's plenty of gold underground, and there's plenty demand for it (as of now), it's that extracting it is so expensive that we might go broke before we can get the gold out.
And the point I'm making, is that shovels are sold at min. 5x markup, and the shovel company (Nvidia and others) has no interest in seeing the market collapse, and is willing to use its generous profits to prop it up.
Nvidia is willing to prop it up, I have no doubt about that, but that doesn’t matter if the market loses faith in the AI narrative. Core weave is a public company, investors can abandon the stock and have already started to do so. Anthropic and Open AI will probably also soon be public. If the market loses faith. It doesn’t matter. And Nvidia may eventually have to decide how much money they are willing to lose on Coreweave.
No, in this analogy, gold is the theoretical work that AI can perform. Once we realize it's not that huge a percentage of all work, demand for AI compute dries up.
Compute is the shovel.
You use the shovel (GPUs) to dig for the gold (work AI can do). However, the AI can't do as much as was hoped, so the demand for GPUs dries up.
I am talking about current market realities. I am not saying compute is in demand, or what AI will or will not be able to do, tech companies who hold the purse strings do.
Your argument suggests that there's a hard cap on AI demand (AI can't do as much as hoped), but currently compute demand far outstrips supply, it's just companies can't pay for it - it's a cashflow problem.
reply