More likely _free_ llms will go the way of free web search and reviews. The economics will dictate that to support their business the model providers will have to sell the eyeballs they’ve attracted.
There's no other way for it to go. And any potentially community run/financed alternatives are already becoming impossible with the anti-crawling measures being erected. But the big players will be able to buy their way through the Cloudflare proxy, for example.
It’s worse than that. In a bazaar there are only 2 participants and they are looking out for their own interests. Most Americans don’t choose their own insurance their _employers_ do.
The insurance company has no reason to make the health recipient happy and the health recipient has little agency in pricing.
In a bazaar you can examine the fruit or rug yourself.
An average person cannot call up $750K in a year to pay for cancer treatment. But for-profit businesses (and any organization for that matter) treat you much better if keep the carrot of another payment in front of their face. If you've forked over the whole wad of cash upfront they immediately de-prioritize keeping you satisfied.
Do you level the same criticism at people who write blogs expressing their enthusiasm for vi keyboard movements or emacs lisp incantations? How about shell improvements and language server based refactor tools?
How about learning to touch type? Clearly code manipulation is not the hard part of writing software so all the people finding efficiency improvements in that tooling and skill set would be better served doing something else with their time? I find it instructive that the evergreen dismissal of one persons enthusiasm as unimportant rarely says what exactly they should be investing in instead.
It’s quite easy to argue that the October 7th attacks were terrorism. They explicitly targeted non-strategic civilian communities and events, for political purpose. They fit within the definition as clearly as any act could.
Argue what you mean. You believe those terrorist attacks are _justified_. There are lots of ways to argue that point. But one of them is ends justification. Did it work out for the people it was supposedly on behalf of?
Yes, October 7th was a terrorist attack - so what? Israel's actions before October 7th were also terrorism, and their actions after October 7th have been many orders of magnitude worse than terrorism.
"Palestine doesn't get what they deserve because they engaged in terrorism" is a hypocritical, useless argument.
P.S. Everyone is "justified" in doing anything they can to regain their freedom once all legal options are exhausted. If you lock a person in your basement I believe they're entirely justified in bashing your face in the first chance they get. It's absurd to imply that they aren't, and it's even more absurd to try to use "but they bashed my face in" as a moral justification to further victimize your basement prisoner.
Your approach is not phishing resistant. Whether that trade off is worth the centralization you are seeing is worth it, is your choice. But the consensus view by the security community is that it’s reasonably easy to get even sophisticated users credentials via phishing.
At this point, does there exist a way to stay secure agreed upon by the security community. Fundamentally phishing is social engineering. Humans are emotional and irrational especially in social situations. Is everything not just a matter of making sure I am a couple standard deviations more secure than most other people?
Extortion risks exposing you in a way that quietly taking their money through cheating at cards does not. It’s also strikes me as a far more serious crime but I could be wrong.
If you ever spend much time trying to _build_ a competent hiring pipeline (and every dev should it’s an eye opening experience) you come to realize that it’s very hard to evaluate the process itself.
For instance I found, the same questions, from a script, asked by different evaluators would regularly perform differently. But getting statistical relevance is hard!
So that’s the allure of leetcode. You can get a large population with standardization, relatively cheaply. That it’s actually a bad eval method gets lost in the wash which is unfortunate but I certainly understand it.
Conversely, “talk about your project” was a completely useless eval when I tried to use it. Good candidates failed, bad candidates passed, evaluators had all manner of biases to the point I started being suspicious that _time of day_ mattered more than the answer.
I’d 100% buy that an individual can accurately judge candidates with this approach, but I’d want heavy evidence if you claimed you could scale it.
reply