Reminds me of products on Amazon with little to know information about the product and photoshopped images. Somehow it was worth making, but selling? Who can be bothered.

Do you normally associate emojis with creating documents?

I meant document in the broad sense to include a tweet, an email or an HN comment.

It would probably have been clearer if I'd written "people who use emoji".

chatgpt does.

If LLMs are an AGI dead end then this has all been the greatest scam in history.

These companies seem to think AGI will come from better LLMs, seems more like an AGI dead end that's plateaued to me.

Or more plausibly they never cared and it was just PR all along.

> more plausibly they never cared and it was just PR all along

That’s still capitulation. When it’s fashionable, they’re one way. When it’s not, they’re the other. It’s not savvy, it’s cowardice.

Or the school was just a cynical tool for generating good PR, where “good” means good for Zuck as he sees it in any moment.

Did anyone really think Zuck cares about people? After all the past and ongoing ethical issues with his companies?

He is consistently looking out for himself. There is no capitulation.

A thought just struck me, but I wonder if the difference between the Billionaires of Today and the Monopolists of Yesteryear is that the wealth and power of the Billionaires are tied up in publicly exposed assets (stocks, etc) as well as networked wealth. Make the wrong political move, and people tank your stock into oblivion.

But what are you going to do to Carnegie? Not have steel? Rockerfeller says something antithetical to Elite Beliefs? Good luck getting oil.

This is relatively well known. Monopolists had very real wealth with a high floor value and controlled large portions of the supply chains needed to build big things that lasted.

The Silicon Valley 'elite' of today has wealth predicated on theoretical value calculations of things the world isn't even convinced it needs. Monumental difference, and it significantly changes how these guys operate and what legacy they leave.

Or they looked at the results and weren't seeing much progress vs their science investments, which also coincided with these billionaire social projects becoming politically unpopular.

For ex, from the article re the school:

> But former leaders of the school who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private information said Chan had grown distant in recent years as the school’s academic performance faltered.

> In 2017, a Harvard study funded by CZI found that by 2015 the growth rate of student achievement in English had significantly improved — but that there had been no significant change for math.

> the school met stumbling blocks. Two principals left in its early years, which three former school leaders said made it difficult to establish stability for students.

NYTimes said the refocusing on science investment vs social happened slowly over 5yrs and they haven't invested in any social ones in a few years. So this change has been in the works for a while...

Zuckerberg will never outrun his "they 'trust me'. dumb fucks" chat log. He's a terrible person.

Many of us did stupid anti-social shit when we were young, especially with computers. The mood of that chat felt like plenty of chats I had with friends, grandstanding and boasting. The sad part is that he hasn't grown as he's gotten older.

He doesn't seem to be trying very hard to outrun it either. Facebook is a toxic dump of human unintelligensia and Mark/FB/Meta only ever seem to resist any attempts to disinfect even small pockets.

He has hundreds of billions of dollars. I think he could go do whatever he wants.

Apparently he could not raise math scores at the school

So what does money have to do with doing what you want ?

Sure, but like some other founders he's doing little to morally redeem himself for his sizeable role in the normalization of engineering addiction while simultaneously creating a massive surveillance firm in the name of ad-tech.

Every bit of lip service about connecting people is overshadowed by "they 'trust me'. dumb fucks".

Why is that a terrible statement? Aren’t you in fact dumb if you just trust some rando’s website on the interent with all the details of your personal life? It’s not even wrong.

Honesty doesn't absolve ill intent.

>I don't think we can claim that either is strictly more reliable than the other

In the article it was schools that were defunded. Does the government have a history of consistently funding schools?

Sadly, yes.

They (AI Corp. Execs) seem to think LLMs will be central to AGI. They are the experts I guess, but I have my doubts.

My cynical side says "exec" and "expert" are mutually exclusive.

Yeah this finding is not surprising in the least.

I think the goal is to destroy US soft power on the way to undermining the rule of law and destroying what passes for a rules-based international order. Once that's done they can really get busy stamping out democracy.

I don't think USAID is the core of US soft power, Hollywood is. Our tech industry is. Our food and our language and the way our culture seeps into everything is.

If USAID and aid to places in much of Africa was our soft power, I'd expect to see a lot less pivoting to China and Russia in those places. On that note, perhaps the countries that decided to invite Wagner or enter the Chinese BRI can ask their new friends for some TB meds?

USAID is the vehicle to paying news/entertainment industry.

maybe they can house some nuke bases there too.

Repercussions? That's for people who expect to be held accountable for their actions.