Making requests is inherently cheaper than delivering responses, even with caches. Efficiency improvements can buy a little time on a given resources but won't solve the problem of bot saturation now that everybody can spawn a custom bot in about 12 seconds and is being encouraged to do so.
Rate limits, blocking, and pay-per-use are the only roads out and even those might not last as models get better at hacking and masquerading.
The internet we want to use LLM's with is simply not one that can support LLM's, and with LLM's not going anywhere, the whole experience of the internet is going to be forced into some radically less open and more expensive paradigm.
Policies like this just represent the beginning of the transition.
We need a new non-commercial version of the internet. Free of bots, free of ads, ... you pay to access social media optimized to be interesting enough to be worth paying instead of addictive enough to keep you scrolling to show you more ads.
It may look impossible right now. But what is impossible for real is to continue as we are. The damage that internet does to society is increasing by the day while its value is reduced (economic value, social value).
> We need a new non-commercial version of the internet.
> you pay to access social media optimized to be interesting...
So is it commercial or non commercial?
Nothing is stopping you from creating a social network that is pay gated. Go build it. If you can't get anyone to sign up perhaps you'll realize it's not so easy as scapegoating addictive social media.
There is a whole cottage industry of people who legitimately make their living criticizing Facebook. It's a consumer software product. Yet few of these people seem to have their conviction extend to building an alternative that ever catches an audience. Why is that? Because addiction? Any other excuses?
It only proves your point because it wasn't successful in the end, but I really enjoyed the experience on app.net (a paid version of Twitter) while it still existed. Personally I think they lost it where a lot of these alternative platforms lose it - they try to build an ecosystem that is always coming soon and ends up scattered instead of focusing on one product
You'd need a force strong enough to prevent it from falling prey to this tragedy of the commons, and that force would need to be stronger than the incentives to commercialize it. And that's where plenty of contemporary scraping-based salaries lay.
Careful what you wish for. The ticket to entry will (have to) be a proof of identity, the ultimate nail in the coffin of privacy and anonymity on the web.Outside of that, chaos.
That's this internet. Nothing precludes you from dropping big tech and solely engaging with the "indie web"[0][1] if you so choose. You're free to build your own website with its own RSS feed, join webrings[2] of like-minded people, and engage organically.
[0] One of many similar initiatives, I'm sure. Not an endorsement.
Thinking about it, besides library access, the internet is already behind ISPs and requires funds to access. Having I2SP's does not solve the underline problem.
The TOR network is probably the closest thing to what OP is describing but that is filled with illicit material and has no safeguards. We all pretend we don't like internet laws but those rules keep criminals below the surface and normal users from accidently stumbling on it.
Anonymous KYC is the way forward. Legislation on preventing bots presenting as legitimate users should be implemented. Similarly to how the world has mostly made robo calling illegal.
I'm not so certain. I used to buy a broadsheet newspaper, which was full of ads. Now I pay a few hundred a year, and get the same newspaper online, with no ads at all.
So, the precursor to online media has already gone through this paradigm shift.
I mean, what you're saying is "If I pay for a product ads go away"
Which is partially true, but it only shifts the distribution of the problem. Once your service gains enough popularity network effects cause it to gain value. You have to worry about high priced buyouts of the entire service (great for the site owner, terrible for the users).
It's not, it just requires creativity. One example I can think of is limiting connectivity by distance between nodes. Something like Meshtastic seems unlikely to ever be commercialized in the same way that the Internet has been. Sure, you would lose some useful applications of the Internet, but you would gain other things.
Just hit a button the bottom and it swaps to the other input and I keep the keyboard / mouse plugged into the monitor and it goes where the input goes.
If he is successful that would provide a road map for other nations to turn away from US hegemony and make deeper connections with Europe instead. Probably makes it easier that Canada is western and a commonwealth country. Carney definitely has the experience and connections in Europe to have a good chance at success.
As a fellow Canadian I think you have a misunderstanding of what’s at stake here. There is potential to lose tens of thousands of jobs by agreeing to the bad deal the american’s proposed.
Go look up what the U.S. was demanding by the end of the recent trade negotiations. They wanted Canada to give up its ability to set its own cultural and trade policy independent of the U.S.. That's a huge step to becoming, not the 51st state, but a protectorate. We wouldn't even have been the Puerto Rico of the North!
Lost jobs can be created again, but signing away sovereignty is not reversible. If the democrats take over in 2028, they're not going to give back what we let Trump take. We know that from past history. We also know, from very recent history, that giving Trump everything he asks for would likely not have spared us. If we had capitulated he'd just come up with new demands.
When your largest trading partner violates its signed commitments and betrays you, there may simply be no way out that doesn't involve some pain.
I wasn't able to go look up the deal. Please explain to me - because last I checked it was being kept confidential by Carney's party while the opposition party is asking for it to be released
The US demanded Canada to give up its sovereignty and become the equivalent of the 51st state. Clearly when a country attempts to force you to do that, it’s time to accelerate decoupling and find allies with other rational counterparties (which Carney is doing). There are other countries that can and will buy Canadian exports.
I don't trust either of them to be honest, which is why I want the actual deal released to the opposition party so that the parliamentary system can function as intended
It's the current CPC line of attack. A month or so ago they tried arguing that Carney, a former governor of two national banks, is worse at economics than a career politician. That didn't go well. Now they're trying to make the case that some kind of conspiracy is going on because a working agreement, which probably isn't in a neat and tidy state and which would probably embarrass and anger the Americans if released in full, wasn't immediately sent to the press.
It's the CPC's job to be critical of Carney. It's everyone else's job to decide when their arguments are grounded in reality.
Carney is pursuing what he calls "associate membership", which has yet to be defined[1]. If the EU wants to form the backbone of a group of middle powers that can hold their own against superpowers like China, as Carney has suggested in the past, they are motivated to offer a deal that doesn't include unacceptable loss of sovereignty. If they can do that, other nations might follow Canada's lead.
One thing the EU has not done is threaten to use economic coercion to force annexation, as the U.S. has done repeatedly. If becoming an associate member of the EU involves some loss of sovereignty, it will probably be less than we'd surrender by choosing not to diversify our trade away from the U.S..
“This power bloc is actively trying to take our sovereignty, but conspiracy theorists say the other power bloc will do that and become a superstate, so we’d better stick with the one whose leader has literally threatened to invade us” would be a weird take for Canada.
No-one’s talking about Canada joining the EU. And ah, leaving the EU is fairly obviously possible; see the UK.
Canada also had a deal they signed with Trump. Then he changed his mind and pretended (or not) he’s to demented to remember it he and not Biden agreed to deal. Then he made other proposals then randomly changed his mind again and again.
There is nothing rational about this, he’s bullying Canada because he has much more leverage over it than he has over China and Europe. Albeit he messed up the global oil supply to fuck with both of them ( and bailed out the Russian economy from collapse while he was at it) or maybe he’s just cluelessly blundered into it, who knows)
> Every other country, including most of Europe, has hammered out some kind of deal with America
So did Canada, and Trump wiped his ass with the deal the moment he needed a distraction from another scandal. Canada is lucky to have leadership that understands the next "deal" will be equally disposable to America.
Yeah 51st state governer carney. This guy is deadly serious. Deals hammered out with Trump are not worth the paper they’re written on. Besides that Trump has already violated CUSMA a deal he signed himself and has invoked ridiculous laws to punish Canada while lying through his teeth the entire time.
You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your account or google services going forward.
Then you sue them again in small claims court for the damages of not having access to your accounts (to which other online services require/are tied to which are not Google-owned properties) and have the judge force your reinstatement with a warning to Google that such punitive actions taken maliciously against the user will result in a prior fine*exponential multiplicative levied for each occurrence, with the base fine amount being the prior multiplicative fine issued.
That leaves Google with very few chances to fuck up before they're financially wiped out, and this is a ruling you can have issued in a small claims court.
How would you force the judge to do that? Has this strategy ever worked for anyone you can cite? Have you tried it yourself?
Otherwise, I'm not sure why just being able to imagine a knock out David vs. Goliath win against Google has any value whatsoever as a viable legal strategy.
It's certainly valid and it has been done in other situations, but the details are different. I don't know that of any case where it's been tried against Google. It's certainly reasonable to think it could work against Google, but the details of would it actually work in the real world? I have no idea. Even if there was precedent that someone could cite, that doesn't mean that your case would win.
If you really want to know, you need to consult a lawyer, not ask here.
It encodes context it needs into doc comments and regular comments that make them in insufferable to read and so verbose because the comments contain info on other parts of the code base (that might have changed since that comment was written) but were useful to the model for its implementation. I have so far found no way to stop claude from doing this. It will sometimes do it with hand holding but the moment a task takes a slightly large amount of context its back to the word barf.
This is certainly a problem with out-of-the-box usage. But easily overcome.
Spend time updating your harness. This is not a hard problem to solve and there are many helpful guides out there.
We basically took our documented (human) SDLC process and applied it to the relevant harness hooks. Since our SDLC docs talked about what good comments looked like and what to avoid, we basically had the direction for the tools. Opus 5 did throw us a loop and increase the verbosity and decrease usefulness of the text, but refining our documentation cleared that hurdle within about a day.
They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome.
The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that.
I am hoping the advent of LLMs allows more entrants into the space at a faster speed. Time will tell. Maybe as FF dies ladybird will take over.
> They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari)
They don't need to. Chrome does extremely well on Windows without "owning the OS".
> nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome
Very few people go to that page anyway.
> The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that.
They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.
> They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.
QFT. The biggest impediment to Firefox's success is the Mozilla Org, which sees it as a cash cow to fund a zillion projects no one wants (sacrificing the future of the browser everyone wants).
Silly take. Chrome does extremely well on Windows because every Google site, from search to Youtube to Gmail to Docs nudges people to install it. Without that 99% of people would just stay on Edge.
Firefox as "just a browser" that is entirely dependent on funding from its main competitor just isn't a future-proof solution. That's why they keep on trying to come up with new revenue streams.
> Silly take. Chrome does extremely well on Windows because every Google site, from search to Youtube to Gmail to Docs nudges people to install it. Without that 99% of people would just stay on Edge.
No they wouldn't. Everyone recommended Chrome, and it came long before Edge (given Edge is based on Chromium). People have got used to Chrome. That's why it does well. People don't even interact with those sites so much any more, as they've all moved to phone apps, but they all still use Chrome.
> Firefox as "just a browser" that is entirely dependent on funding from its main competitor just isn't a future-proof solution. That's why they keep on trying to come up with new revenue streams.
Just paying far fewer executives and putting money aside for lean years is a good start. Put aside $150m/year and spend $100m on servers and engineers and that'll get you a long way. But because it's free money it gets spent on nonsense.
This is a consequence of browser monopolies, established by Microsoft in the 90s: everyone should have to pay for a browser and make a deliberate choice in vendor. The fact that they're free and subsidized by large businesses in other markets, rather than being a product you choose to buy, is a concrete example of monopolistic market distortion.
> The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that.
We all know how that was paid for. Google. But instead of taking that money stream and investing it 100% into making it the best browser ever, they pursued a myriad of fancy distractions. Yes, making a sustainable browser project is hard. Making a sustainable browser project while being constantly distracted by side project and political activism [1] is even harder. I am not saying if Mozilla stayed focused the win would be guaranteed. But I am pretty sure doing it like they are doing it guarantees failure.
Doesn't Mozilla foundation have millions of dollars, including paid for by Google? "Linux" is better capitalized, "Wikipedia" is sort of open source, what else ranks above Mozilla?
Firefox works everywhere I point it to, for now. "Let the user modify their own software" does not cost extra.
Being beholden to Google who might decide that the risk of antitrust is lower than the price they are paying for that search box is a pretty precarious place to be in.
The series of own goals is a bigger problem. They should spend their $ on FF and allow direct donations that only go to FF and not to their hobby projects.
Difference between taking your own notes and skimming someone else's.
I have found in the last year I "get more done" but I learn less. Whats even worse is if I burn though my token quota I am less likely(and less able) to "switch to manual". LLMs make an ocean of decisions and assumptions very quickly and if you don't slow it down very intentionally (and lose the promise of the AI providers are pitching) you will quickly not have a good idea of how systems work.
It’s funny, I’m the exact opposite. I’ve tackled projects at scales I could never have done before, and learned more than I would have.
My actual coding ability is probably lower, but I’ve learned so much about music theory and production, CAD, and statistics. All because my hobby projects can go so much further than before.
Isn't there a risk that this learning is too superficial to actually stay around and impact your thinking in the long run?
How I experience it at least, there is no free lunch. Something that gives you knowledge and experience will almost by definition be painful and uncomfortable.
We use AI because it is faster, but that speed has a consequence.
Someone else hit on it: a lot this discussion is about whether we as individuals see collection and maintenance of pure knowledge as the goal, or achievement of outcomes.
I’d say both are valid. I’m definitely an outcome person. I like making things. I’m taking a multi-year break from a decades-long CNC ceramics project, and I have no doubt my knowledge and skills will atrophy. That’s fine, I’m confident I can pick them up again if/when I return.
If I fail to work hard enough on understanding the physics of alternate tunings and rely “too much” on AI to produce a piece, I’m ok with that. If and when I hit a wall and AI isn’t giving the results I want, I’ll dive deeper.
I’ve never been a cram for the test kind of person. I do best when using knowledge in an ongoing basis. Regardless of AI, things I studied intensely a decade ago but never use are by and large gone, whereas things I use frequently stay and deepen.
I don’t expect it to be any different with AI, but YMMV.
At this point no one is buying into mainframes are they?
So they are just selling to the existing pool of users for which the price just has to come in under the cost/risk of rewriting all their ancient stuff.
> At this point no one is buying into mainframes are they?
If you want to be a high-volume consumer bank (insurance is similar - it's about processing a high volume of transactions), you have few alternatives. You can get a couple mainframes (you should place them in different datacenters), with their extreme reliability and stability, or you can build your infrastructure with commodity distributed systems, but then you'll need to build the same level of reliability out of your unreliable components. Current solutions are getting really good at that, but it's your job to integrate them. In the end, it's not really a matter of how much money you spend, but how you spend it - the numbers will closely match.
Regulators don't really care how you do it, as long as you don't fail to provide adequate guarantees to your customers (banking is extremely regulated, and customers are well protected).
There are many "new banks" that have been using cloud. It remains to be seen if they'll opt to migrate their stacks to mainframes, in which case, the ARM support might come in handy, as more packages are better optimized (as in using platform-specific functionality) for ARM than for s390x (where I don't think many people spend much time).
reply