Simply put, because you often want to change the state of something without breaking all the references to it.

Wild off the top of my head example: you’re simulating a football game. Everything is represented by objects which hold references to other objects that are relevant. The ball object is held by player object W, player object X is in collision with and holds a reference to player object Y, player Z is forming a plan to pass to player object X (and that plan object holds a reference to player object X) and so on.

You want to be able to change the state of the ball object (its position say) without creating a new object, because that would invalidate how every other existing object relates to the ball.

hahahahahaha nope.

Reads like someone took an English Lit major, switched to Philosophy, failed both, and is currently at a STEM major college party talking wank…

We were promised hyper-intelligent computer systems that would usher in an era of unparalleled prosperity and innovation.

With the advent of ChatGPT, some say these modern-day oracles have arrived.

Others say they are nothing but bullshit machines.

Technologists and publicists gush about how Large Language Models (LLMs) will revolutionize the way we work, learn, play, communicate, create, and connect to another.

They are right that artificial intelligence (AI) will affect nearly every aspect of our daily lives.

And they are right that by providing a way for people to talk with machines in ordinary language, LLMs constitute a dramatic step forward in making computing accessible to everyone.

Yet for all the good that AI systems will do, they will also saturate our information environment with bullshit at a scale we’ve never before encountered.

“I think it’s going to be the most transformative technology humanity has ever created, potentially on par with or exceeding the invention of the printing press, electricity, and the internet.” Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO

For better or for worse, LLMs are here to stay. We all read content that they produce online, most of us interact with LLM chatbots, and many of us use them to produce content of our own.

In a series of five- to ten-minute lessons, we will explain what these machines are, how they work, and how to thrive in a world where they are everywhere.

You will learn when these systems can save you a lot of time and effort. You will learn when they are likely to steer you wrong. And you will discover how to see through the hype to tell the difference. ?

Have you considered putting your gaming pc in one of the storage freezers? /s

It’s predictive text on speed. The LLMs currently in vogue hardly qualify as A.I. tbh…

My history might be dusty but I don’t think Hitler ever said he intended to become a dictator before people voted for him. His subsequent deception once in power is what you might refer to as the coup.

Trump on the other hand…

It is a coup if people vote for it?

Places I’ve consulted at have typically gone through noun lists unconnected to the work. Noun lists like i) greek gods (project Perseus) ii) Roman gods (project Janus) iii) literally random nouns (project Rainbow) iv) precious stones (project Sapphire) and so on…

That is true. Why people think enormous content servers should be run for free boggles my mind…

I should have stated it the other way round. Free and ad driven by default (like normal and like what people are used to) but an optional premium tier that removes ads and gives more control of your feed.

I think capitalist ghoulishness dominates innovation at the moment. Because massive resources will always be ahead doing new things. But at some point - I hope - a fairly agreeable social network becomes a sort of ‘solved problem’. Perhaps some FOSS version becomes available that’s not cutting edge but gets the job done. It would lack the sophisticated needed to coerce people and milk their attention, but that’s not needed for our purposes.

I’m wondering how long it’ll be till social media is basically a ‘solved problem’. As in, there becomes available a foss clone of Facebook (or whatever) that’s close enough to be useable and enjoyable. If such a thing were set up with ads design need to cover costs not maximise profit (and therefore there aren’t as many) or with a reasonable priced ad free tier that covers costs and only a modest profit then would people possibly be attracted to such an “ethical” offering?

How about it starts free + ad based like any other network but offers a premium tier that removes ads and gives full control of feed that current networks don’t offer. They don’t offer this because manipulating people is apparently far more lucrative than any reasonably priced premium tier. But this is only because they’re a ‘profit at any cost’ company. If an alternative ethical social network advertised the fact that it only makes a modest profit so that it’s free tier is ad based but not unhealthy and the premium tier is reasonably priced. I wonder if such a thing is possible.

Obviously no current network does this because they’re investor funded and committed to max profits.

Yes. I perhaps should have stated the other way round.

What about “ethical” social network. That’s free and ad based if you want that. And the ads are present but less manipulative because the goal is to cover costs not maximise profit.

And then that’s a premium option if you want to have no ads and full control of your content feed.

The reason Facebook and co don’t offer this is because they apparently make massive amounts from each user ($68). And that only because they engage in whatever ghoulish behaviour get people locked in enough to deliver that

An ethical social network wouldn’t have to drive as much per user, because it would publicly limit itself to modest profit. Covering free use with ads presumably possible. Cost of premium being running cost + modest profit seems like it wouldn’t be that high surely?

People hate subscription based models because the company is maximising profit and engaging in every kind of bait and switch it can get away with

That’s why I’m wondering if there would be an appetite for an ethical social network, where the DNA of the company is based upon covering running costs and only a moderate profit.

The fact that it wouldn’t unreasonable hike prices once you’re hooked in or reintroduce ads to paid tiers would be the very appeal on the platform.

Obviously, no-one is immune to being offered millions in ad deals to try and reverse that ethical stuff. Which is why I suppose it would either have to be a very public commitment to ethical behaviour from the outset which protects backtracking and sellouts somewhat. Or else it has to get founded as an actual not-for-profit to make a future change almost impossible. Developers still get paid of course, even very well. Just no-one has the incentive to maximise share value by shitty crooked behaviour.

That’s the idea - it’s a choice. If people want free or don’t care about ads - then that’s how their use gets funded. For people who want no ads and no curation of their feed to favour advertisers , then theres the premium option.

I guess the difference would be the premium cost is self limited to running costs + modest profit and for this reason the whole site is promoted as ethical…

Really? Jeez. Last I heard, evidently incorrectly, was a few dollars at best. That explains their ghoulishness somewhat.

Even so, Facebook brings in enormous profit. Evidently a result of maximizing whatever they can get away with

I’m wondering what the costs are to cover just hosting / content delivery.

Ie, is it feasible at some point that a not-for-profit social platform comes about. Or a for profit one that promotes itself as ethical and subsequently charges premium users based on running costs + moderate profit rather than pushing every kind of manipulative behaviour it can get away with just to maximise ad value.

People pay to remove ads from YouTube, Netflix, Amazon etc.

The point wouldn’t be to put people off, you can still push the platform to the masses as “free”. It’s just that once you’re there if you find the ads annoying or you don’t want your feed algo’d to death, then it has a “remove ads” paid option that currently platforms all lack…

Disable ads for $2 a month?

Just anything this doesn’t then try to bleed people in every conceivable way…

All the algo manipulation comes from an over reliance on ad income. If a social network put its costs + a modest profit onto premium users what would that look like?

Surely at some point a network that can honestly say “we aren’t reliant on sponsors” is going to be appealing to enough people. (Even if there is then a free ad supported tier for those who don’t have an option - it would hardly be worse than what they’ve currently got)