According to whom? No one's running their instance here. I'm a software dev with over 20 years of foss experience and imo lemmy's user base is somewhat illiterate bunch of contrarians when it comes to popular tech discussions.
We're clearly not going to agree here without objective data so unless you're willing to provide that have a good day, bye.
100% people should break up much more often statistically speaking. But uprooting your life is understandably very hard.
The medium is also filled with so much bullshit like "the kids will be sad" when in reality almost always kids end up better in divorced families than the ones that struggle to stay together.
You use one company thats is spearheading the entire industry as your example that no AI company is profitable. Either you are argueing in extremely bad faith or you're invredibly stupid I'm sorry.
Americans are not all people. Its a single country that still buys out all Nintendo switches and cyrbertrucks - so maybe if americans had budgeting classes they wouldn't take payday loans for twinkies? The conjecture here is just mind bogglingly stupid.
Every AI software company? So much ignorance in this thread its almost impossible to respond to. Llm queries are super cheap already and very much profitable.
Willing to take real life money bet that bubble is not going to pop despite Lemmy's obsession here. The value is absolutely inflated but it's definitely real value and LLMs are not going to disappear unless we create a better AI technology.
In general we're way past the point of tech bubbles popping. Software markets move incredibly fast and are incredibly resilient to this. There literally hasn't been a software bubble popping since dotcom boom. Prove me wrong.
Even if you see problems with LLMs and AI in general this hopeful doomerism is really not helping anyone. Now instead of spending effort on improving things people are these angry, passive, delusional accelerationists without any self awareness.
As someone who is actually an AI tool developer (I just use existing models) - it's absolutely NOT failing.
Lemmy is ironically incredibly tech illiterate.
It can be working and good and still be a bubble - you know that right? A lot of AI is overvalued but to say it's "failing badly" is absurd and really helps absolutely no one.
Americans legit think the internet ends at their borders. Even relatively modern places like Bluesky are so infuriating for not understanding how internet works.
One challenge here is that we generally value human life pretty high, well at least speaking from legal compensation pov. So you can't sue Joe the drunk driver for killing your husband for 300 million but you can do thay to Tesla.
In authoritarian states like china maybe society can be forced into accepting "for greater good" sort of mentality but it's not going to happen in the west imo.
No the issue still remains on who's actually responsible? With human drivers we always have someone to take the blame but with robots? Who's at fault when a self driving car kills someone? The passenger? Tesla? Someone has to be sued and it'll be Tesla so even if its 1% of total accidents the legal instructions will be overwhelmed because the issue is 1000% harder to resolve.
Once Tesla starts losing multiple 300M lawsuits the flood gates will be open and the company is absolutely done.
Yeah but also how would this work at full driving scale. If 1,000 cases and 100 are settled for 0.3 billion that's already 30 billion a year, almost a quarter of Tesla's yearly revenue. Then in addition, consider the overhead of insurance fraud etc. It seems like it would be completely legally unsustainable unless we do "human life costs X number of money, next".
I genuinely think we'll be stuck with humans for a long time outside of highly controlled city rides like Wayno where the cars are limited to 40km hour which makes it very difficult to kill anyone either way.
Seems like jury verdicts don't set a legal precedent in the US but still often considered to have persuasive impact on future cases.
This kinda makes sense but the articles on this don't make it very clear how impactful this actually is - here crossing fingers for Tesla's down fall. I'd imagine launching robo taxis would be even harder now.
It's funny how this legal bottle neck was the first thing AI driving industry research ran into. Then, we kinda collectively forgot that and now it seems like it actually was as important as we thought it would be. Let's say once robo taxis scale up - there would be thousands of these every year just due sheer scale of driving. How could that ever work outside of places like China?
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don't go on this toxic rant and just say "nah man I can't afford to maintain this" which is very well accepted.
According to whom? No one's running their instance here. I'm a software dev with over 20 years of foss experience and imo lemmy's user base is somewhat illiterate bunch of contrarians when it comes to popular tech discussions.
We're clearly not going to agree here without objective data so unless you're willing to provide that have a good day, bye.