• 30 Posts
  • 2.62K Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2024年3月22日

help-circle
  • “all-in-one API” that will allow agencies to connect their systems to models from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic

    This is a huge red flag to me.

    It means:

    • They are ignorant of existing APIs and standards that are exactly this. Uh, MCP or OpenAI API? Which everyone already uses?
    • They have zero interesting in models they can host themselves, or from cheaper providers. Or, heaven forbit, finetune for their own work.
    • They have zero interest in actually useful tools. Like, say, SGLang’s cached hosting and fast fill-in-the-blanks formatting which is perfect for say, processing government forms.

    In other words, it’s just full corporate AI Bro capture. And shitty.

    One of the consequences is that it will be very bad, unfortunately.


  • To be fair, Axios didn’t rag on Iran here. They didn’t do any kind of labeling, just stating what happened: Israel bombed a live Iranian news station.

    That’s what news is supposed to be. The opinion columns are where terms like ‘Zionist regime’ goes. Same with whatever you’d want to call Iran’s govt, but news is just the event as it comes, maybe with context.

    Bombing a live news station, and clarifying that there was no warning, speaks for itself. More context of Israel’s many other crimes would be better, but Axios has a very-brief writing style.







  • TBH we should be rioting in front of big news headquarters.

    In front of Facebook. Twitter. Google. They’re not too far from LA. Employees should feel scared about enabling all this.

    None of this shit matters if algos ignore it, deliberately. Trump can do whatever TF he wants because the media ecosystem built around him is so profitable and engaging, and covering it milquetoast (or worse) is so profitable, not because absolutely everyone obeys him for no reason.

    We should make that unprofitable.








  • Agreed.

    I almost feel like the discussion about her is bot farms creating that discussion.

    Close. It’s chum. It’s rage bait. It’s an engagement farm that suck people in, which is exactly how influencers like Trump climbed to the top of the world. It’s true, but it doesn’t change that raging against Rowling online helps Rowling, when the best form of protest would be to turn her into “she who shall not be named”

    Be wary attributing to bots what can be attributed to the failure of “don’t feed the trolls”


  • Russia: President, our population is aging! We’re suffering from a brain drain and an isolated, undiversified economy that can’t exploit our vast natural resources in the long term! How should we address this!?

    Putin: Rubs chin contemplatively. Why don’t we kill all our young men by invading our culturally similar neighbor, even if it goes bad? Oh, and kidnap and bomb a few children to make it look good on the international stage. Perhaps we should become a Chinese vassal like North Korea… Yes, do that.

    Russia: flashbacks intensify

    US: Looks on enviously. Looks at vast resources, aging population kept young by immigration, and friendly neighbors. Nods. Can we do that?

    US Voters: Hold our beer!

    Sorry (but not sorry), the war is indeed awful.




  • Yeah I think that’s a perfectly reasonable sentiment, and I despise frying that as a political purity test. Rowling is probably being platformed by all this by some extent… Any attention is good attention these days.

    Shit, I hope JK doesn’t use it to run for some kind of office.

    The utter popularity of Harry Potter (and the royalties she rakes in) undoubtedly dwarfs any personal name recognition/brand she ever achieves though. Like, it’s insanely popular.


  • You misinterpreted my, to be fair, vague statement. I meant AA is seemingly a bad source to read about opposition parties like the PKK, because of the obvious conflict of interest.

    I mean, AP is a pretty decent source. It’s a nonprofit coop stretching back to 1846 in a country with, err, could-be-worse press freedom history, while AA has been state run since 1920, somewhat akin to VOA, BBC, Al Jazeera or RT I guess.

    And yes, I know, AP is still an objectively bad source for specific topics, you don’t have to drill that in. So would whoever shills for the PKK, in some respects. But I’m not playing the game of “they did this and this, they can’t be trusted like them and them!” either. One has to look for conflict of interests everywhere, but it’s also okay to respect the good work long running institutions have done (like AA and this article).