I think there are already laws in a lot of places requiring food images whether photographs, illustrations, AI generated images, etc. not to materially mislead consumers about what they’re buying.
So people using AI for this might soon run into issues with hallucinated extra ingredients or exaggerated portion sizes.
I don't care if a project uses AI or not, but I absolutely do care that they are firmly gatekept in alignment with their vision and team dynamics. Then I can choose projects whose gatekeeping policies I agree with.
There is never not an alternative to something, and I can always have my AI botch together my own version if I think this is going to get me better results.
Spot on. Py2 was integer division, Py3 was true division. In Py2 you could get the true division with an `from __future__ import division` (Can't recall which Py2 version this became an import). Fun fact too: In Py3 you can do a // to get back to the floor division effect (e.g. 1 // 2 --> 0)
PEP 238 lays out the story if anyone is curious. Well into the Python 3 transition, I still had a habit of multiplying the denominator by 1.0 to ensure it was a float.
Update June 15: We're pausing the changes to Claude Agent SDK usage described below. For now, nothing has changed: Claude Agent SDK, claude -p, and third-party app usage still draw from your subscription's usage limits. The previously announced monthly credit, which would have been available to eligible claimants in connection with these changes, isn't available. We’re working to update the plan to better support how users build with Claude subscriptions. When we have an update, we'll share it before anything takes effect.
I don't think the problem is that people don't believe AI can be beneficial. The problem is the perception that AI will affect people's lives more negatively than positively, while a few get even more obscenely rich and powerful.
If you don't tackle the societal level problems, nobody will care about research breakthroughs.
I don't see a lot of societal level problems other than the labor market, for which both Anthropic and OpenAI create research, monitoring, and policy advice.
I don't think anyone will care about the largely made up issues about electricity prices or water use in case AI literally cures cancer.
How do you not see other societal level problems. This technology destroys human communication. It undermines the thing the internet came into existence for, and turns it into a liability. It grants intelligent analysis to a sprawling surveillance network. It makes people mentally ill. It destroys confidence and hope in technological progress. Who even cares about cancer at that point? I would rather die of cancer than live in a fake, ugly, artless world full of fake, stupid, and crazy people under constant surveillance by an AI.
To me, it feels closer to dealing with a personal outsourcing agency than working with internal coworkers, because the agents have zero skin in the game.
It's great. You can get a lot of stuff done in parallel. But it's much more a game of checkbox compliance than working with someone who has their head in the same context as you all day. Even a very junior teammate has some situational awareness inside a company/team.
It is exactly that until the moment it isn't and it does something amazing, truly amazing, and I never see it coming when it does happen. But it doesn't happen all that often. It's just that it does happen here and there.
Something I've noticed quite a bit on the paid plans as well is that it starts its answers with "I mostly agree..." or "almost correct...," then goes through the list of points I made without actually disagreeing with any of them.
I assumed this is a system prompt or RL that nudges it to be always skeptical but then it still has like all the models the urge to appease the user.
So people using AI for this might soon run into issues with hallucinated extra ingredients or exaggerated portion sizes.