[–] 7 points 1 year ago

Similar thought... If it was so revolutionary and innovative, I wouldn't have access to it. The AI companies would be keeping it to themselves. From a software perspective, they would be releasing their own operating systems and browsers and whatnot.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I think the order of Java and Python makes perfect sense. The OOP C++ -> Java pipeline was massive in the early 2000s when python wasn't really on the radar. The world has been slowly moving away from that, and Python is one of the most popular languages right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Maybe try convincing him in terms he would understand. If it was really that good, it wouldn't be public. They'd just use it internally to replace every proprietary piece of software in existence. They'd be shitting out their own browser, office suite, CAD, OS, etc. Microsoft would be screwing themselves by making chatgpt public. Microsoft could replace all the Adobe products and drive them out of business tomorrow.

    Edit: that was fast

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also depends how hard the AI runs them. A good chunk of the graphics cards that were used as miners came out on life support if not completely toasted. Games generally don't run the piss out of them like that 24/7, and many games are still CPU bound.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    100%. In my opinion, the whole "build your program around your model of the world" mantra has caused more harm than good. Lots of "best practices" seem to be accepted without any quantitative measurement to prove it's actually better. I want to think it's just the growing pains of a young field.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›