Doesn't mean there aren't practical definitions depending on the context.
In essence, teaching an AI using recources meant for humans, and nothing more, would be considered AGI. That could be a practical definition, without needing much more rigour.
There is indeed no evidence we'll get there. But there is also no evidence LLM's should work as well as they do
LLM is far from the highest AI related cost, so we basically don't care about optimizing LLMs.
Obviously we don't use the super expensive ones like GPT4.5 or so. But we don't really bother with mini models, because GPT4.1 etc.. are cheap enough.
Stuff like speech to text etc.. are still way more expensive, and yes there we do focus on cost optimization. We have no large scale image generation use cases (yet)
well, as someone working in a department that also has Fraud detection responsibilities, the amount of users that lose tons of money because of scam apps, spoofed apps, identity stealing apps, is big. Like insanely big. I am all for it that these apps get significantly harder for the average joe to install or run on their phones.
It's a considerable number well into the 8 figures $/year that we have to cover (Granted this number is not specifically smartphones, also includes desktops, but I know smartphones is the bigger piece nowadays.)
(insuring this is near impossible, there is always a large part risk we have to pay ourselves and cannot cede to a reinsurer)
The problem isn't play protect or whatever the fuck, because 80% of the play store is malware, adware, and spyware anyway.
The problem is actually Google and other big tech.
Let's consider: why are users installing so many apps?
Because, on desktop, this doesn't happen. We don't ask people to download and run an EXE to look at their friends funny cat photos. No, we open the web browser.
The reason we have so many apps on mobile is because we require the malware. Google requires the malware. We need to be able to run privileged and unsandboxed code on users devices and this is the world that Apple and Google have created.
Users shouldn't be fucking downloading apps for 90% of the stuff they do anyway - including the non malicious apps! But they do, because they have no choice.
Think about it. Provide a web interface and miss out on juicy spyware? Or install executables on your customers systems? Apps are far too enticing for big tech.
I don't condone theft... but I do remember a day before self checkouts existed, and stores had to hire enough cashiers to be faster than their competitors. Those dozens of checkout lanes at the front of big-box stores weren't always decorative, they used to all be staffed during busy periods.
Why am I waiting in line to check myself out? That is what drives me nuts. "But they take up space" you say. There's lots of wasted space with the 8 standard checkout lines that are unmanned every time I come in the store.
I have never experienced a faster checkout with self checkout.
If it's super fast, it's just for a few items, and a cashier would've been just as fast. If it's for a lot of items, there's a decent chance I have to look up some codes or something; which a cashier is better and faster at.
The trade off of self checkout is cost savings for the business. These savings are not passed on to me. Therefore, I don't give a flying rat's ass about them.
I'm with OP. If I'm working for the business, they will compensate me. Willingly or unwillingly.
IME it's faster because the queue is shorter. You can fit about 2.5 self checkout machines in the same space, enabling more people to checkout in parallel.
you'd be surprised how many people steal small valuable items and hide it by doing normal shopping and having a normal shopping cart for their other items.
That expensive 30 dollar bottle of shampoo for example, in the handbag, and just checkout the other items like normal.
I worked at a place where we could easily track people through the store. Not ID them, but if at any point we clicked on a person, and we could see from entering the store until exiting the store everywhere they passed. shoplifting is super easy to prove after the fact, just hard to do whilst they are still in the store
So, we're talking a 30 dollar bottle of shampoo vs. people walking in, dumping the whole shelf into a trash bag and walking out. And yet we're putting all this technology, surveillance and loss prevention staff in place to catch the shampoo guy rather than trash bag man.
but it's been proven time and time again, that any form of fraud of theft, leads to at least 3x more in the future.
If they get away with it, they never stop, and just keep stealing more and more. Most never hit any repercussions. Yet in amount of actual numbers of people committing those acts, it's a very small number compared to the number of thefts.
So stopping it early is just smarter. Better to stop someone stealing 250 euro, rather than wait a year, let that same person steal more and more, just until they steal 5000 euro and it's worth it to prosecute. It's still the same person, same amount of effort. Just more damage to society.
you kill off all open source pieces, in turn compliance is happy, and a CTO is happy because he has a maintenance contract and can blame other people if stuff goes wrong.
It's a way to get those pesky Python people to shut up
Oh, and a CTO is always valued more if he manages a 5 million Databricks budget, where he can prove his worth by showing a 5% discount het negotiated very well, than a 1 million whatever-else budget that would be best in class. Everybody wins.
because it's recommended by nearly all consultants and Microsoft.
Simple as that, it's consulting Heaven. Much like SAS and SAP. Everybody happy.
Now to be far to databricks, if used properly and ignore the cost, it does actually function pretty well. Compared to Synapse, PowerBI Tabular, Fabric, Azure ML, ... that's already a big big big step forward.
yeah where IT blocks half of the config, and you disable half of the features that could make it great, just to make sure they definitely don't give control to..GASP... A DATA ENGINEER
reply