Is everyone a walking and talking brand now so that they have to always filter their words, walk on eggshells, hide behind corpo-speak so as to seem 'professional'?

More honest discourse is required in today's world, not less. It seems interactions online are becoming less and less authentic.

You can either do local optimization - a single individual moving as fast and as hard as humanly possible, or global optimization - a team working together and amplifying each other's efforts to produce something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

It's getting quite exhausting having to endure all these major events of the 21st century and their consequences - 9/11 and the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, covid-19, and now AI.

But I guess it's better than all out war and conquest as was with most of human history.

If you have tens of thousands of employees the more complicated the communication is, the larger the variation of interpretation of its meaning, I suppose

That is either betting on AI being better than humans then, or closure of the company.

> "We believe the future belongs to developer-friendly, horizontal platforms that can run across diverse compute environments and give customers real choice in how and where they deploy AI," Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon said.

Information really does want to become free, but AI companies want to be gatekeepers. Long term I bet on the open weights to win, as the more sustainable approach.

Isn't this a good thing, employing more educators, building more schools?

Any sane society will always invest more into its future well being and incentivize investments into education.

Depends on who has their ears in terms creating policies around technology.

At least DeepSeek freely gives back the benefits.

All three either have security or stability issues, which seems to get worse, not better, as microsoft goes more into AI. Where is the AI productivity (10x by some accounts!) within the company going to?

Only once was there a noticeable breakage when a command like `git log` in the terminal would spit out all its output instead of displaying one screenful at a time. I'd expect someone following stable releases wouldn't experience any breakages.

> Matz has said as much. He’s described Ruby’s design as starting from a simple Lisp, stripping out macros and s-expressions, then adding an object system, blocks, and Smalltalk-style methods. The features most Rubyists fall in love with aren’t the object-oriented ones. They’re the functional ones, dressed in friendlier clothes.

With hindsight, does that hold? If not, then how would we know a model is truly dangerous to release?