Olaf Scholz? Is he still relevant? I think you might be confusing the former German Chancellor with the current one, Friedrich Merz. Who actually said “that Google is also investing in Germany and Europe, and that we can ensure European sovereignty here even with an American provider.” - which is utterly ridiculous.

The article mentions that the state is currently home to 257 data centers. Just one thing to note in case you aren't aware: That's not exclusively AI datacenters and there is a massive difference in power draw and pollution between regular data centers and the AI counterpart.

I never wanted to be anything, and I was exceptionally successful at that so far. :/

I guess it would be good if a developer would disclose what AI was used for. Can't make everyone happy here, because we have all nuances from "any AI use is bad" to "IDGAF" on Lemmy, so the dev should give more details on actual AI use. I personally would not object to using AI helpers for boilerplate stuff like this, but I can guarantee that a lot of people here think differently about it

Should have used IMAP, amirite?

Guess a real bank employee would know that withdraw used as a noun is called a withdrawal, but fun story.

I still can't wrap my head around how this strategy ("buy our models, they are so powerful they might kill all humans") would work in their favor, apart from one thing: restrictions would hurt Chinese models probably more than themselves. But I find it very unlikely that characters like Altman or Amodei would be capable of playing that kind of 4d chess. It's a weird flex

What do you think where this is going to end up? My personal assessment of the situation is that only the mega-corporations can afford enshittification like that, and even those are now getting a taste of their own medicine (Sloperators recreating their flagship products... it's a race to the bottom with enshittification on one side and sloppy replacements on the other). Smaller sized companies will simply get buried when the quality of their products falls to garbage levels. This is what those smaller sized companies don't realise yet: When everyone can churn out the same low quality slop, their USP and their customers are gone soon.

Let them, but insist they should also use Claude to QA their code and thus take responsibility for the whole thing. If they trust AI to be good enough, why not go full circle? That shouldn't be a problem, right?

Joking aside, I know there is a real danger of those people shifting the responsibility for their created code mess downwards to the developers and QA, and when shit inevitably hits the fan they know who to blame.

While that is partly true, it oversimplifies a few things. And these are the things that make LLMs a dead end for intelligence:

• Evolution means constant learning and adaption. LLMs can't be adapted on the go, they are stuck with their initial training data and retraining is a slow and externally controlled process. Apart from training, every additional information you give it while running must be loaded into the context, the space for context is limited and must be flushed before supplying different context. That's a hard limit for evolution, at least with current technology.
• The physical world is more important than you might think because everything hinges on this realm, including the electricity, cabling and hardware involved in running a model. The idea of an intelligent entity that exists purely as an ethereal cloud of logic unbound by physics is hard to justify, because the shape of logic itself is defined by the physical ground we are standing on. Therefore, an AI would need a first-hand access and understanding of the physical world to be successful. LLMs can't have any of that, because they are purely language-bound.

I personally think Yann LeCun (a pioneer of machine learning and AI) is on the right track with his research and his opinion that LLMs are a dead end for artificial intelligence. The reasons are more on a technical than a philosophical side.

It's kind of scary to imagine living in that time and using all these products (or even worse, being a worker in an asbestos factory) cause you have no way to know this stuff causes cancer. I wonder what kind of extremely unhealthy things we are exposed to right now just because we don't know.

Not the OP, but any software developer who has spent some time with the inner workings of LLMs can tell you that. Open weight models are a good opportunity to explore how LLMs work on the inside and to experiment with them a lot more than you can do with the so called Frontier models. The technology however is the same. These are just very fancy statistical prediction machines, and the reason why you are so impressed with them is that the statistical average of what sounds reasonable in a conversation is exactly what people expect to hear on average, given a specific context. It's a neat little trick that works only only as long as the context fits (contentwise and spacewise), and once you realize that you'll see LLMs as what they truly are. There is no magic, and the "intelligence" is the intelligence of the people who built those systems, the systems themselves are not intelligent in any commonly used sense of the word.