Cash is actually faster in many cases, the 'slowness' is the matter of perception and the need to make a cognitive operation of 1st grader counting, which is apparently a daunting prospect for many people.
And even if it were slower by 20-30 secs, the advantage it gives in control and privacy is such enormous that I don't understand people who use banks at all.
The last thing other people should know is how, where, and when a person spends their money. And due to the AML surveillance from the discussed article the banking privacy is practically dead.
> Or if you read the fine article you would realise that AML rules generate so much noise that there isn't any analysis.
Which is even worse, since the only practical use of that data is now selective enforcement and/or parallel construction.
Not to mention the constant hassle such laws have for regular folks trying to transact in cash while barely being a speed bump for those engaging in actual money laundering at scale.
> The fact that counting exists at all is a cost that people don't measure.
When cash skills were common and regularly utilized, the average cashier could count out most change in about the time a card swipe or dip happened. Tap makes it considerably faster though.
Today I agree - the average cash handling skills are effectively nonexistent to the point I comment on it when a cashier understands how to count back change correctly, much less do it from muscle memory.
I don't feel that LLMs are replacing books for professionals.
The problem with LLM learning is not that they can't explain a concept, but you have to know what to ask in the first place. To get a deep proper answer from LLMs you need a deep precise prompt. When you learn the new topic, you don't know about the topic itself, so you need a properly structured interleaved material to grasp new concepts.
After you get the concepts from books, you can prompt the LLM for particular non-covered subjects you are interested in.
So even these days when I'm interested in some topic, I sometimes even ask the very same LLM to provide me top-10,top-20 books for the topic, with short overview for which type and level of readers and style they are, pick a few and read them.
LLM is a replacement for docs and simple questions on StackOverflow, not for the real organized knowledge that requires a few hours session of concentration to understand.
You can ask them for high-level overviews of a given topic, and then drill down into individual sections of its response. With the most recent iterations, many of the times I have blindly stumbled into something new, it has pushed back with warnings
> There will be businesses no human can comprehend or manage.
If nobody neither fully created nor manages the business, then we probably shouldn't assume any property rights on it by anyone, therefore all the profits must go to the public.
They stopped being used as primary weapons because better ones were found - mostly firearms - not because people got bored of it; or reverted to some earlier methods of warfare.
Yes, there is the general class of technologies (warfare, computing ...) and there are particular instances of those for a given time and space and evolve as the landscape changes.
The technology of warfare evolved to better mechanisms, perhaps same with computing.
Bows and arrows are still widely used for hunting all over the world. I was able do freelance work on a relatively low income because of access to ~150lbs of deer meat that came from multiple bow-hunted deer.
This is an interesting question that I haven't thought about, thanks.
What we currently have is a simulacrum of thought - albeit a good one.
Any technology is useful only in the sense that it helps us with solving the problems we are dealing with in that time. When we face issues that a pseudo-thought is not useful in tackling or worse is one of the causes - this will recede in the background.
Beyond that, the implicit assumption in the question is that thinking is the highest form of activity that is useful to us.
I don't know how my thoughts arise but thinking happens when I engage with them. I think what we look for is meaning in our lives and thinking helps us generate/achieve one, whether real or illusory.
I don't know about you, but I can buy bows and arrows at hundreds of sporting goods stores in my local area alone, and I even know of 2 local blacksmith shops that sell swords.
Castles still exist as well, you just aren't invited to them (which was true for us peasants back in the day, too). Trump is still trying to get one built under the ruins of the East Wing, in fact.
But are these actually completely different technologies, and if so, where is the dividing line? Firearms certainly have not decreased in significance, and they're the modern version of a bow, which is simply 2 iterations later in propulsion methods: tensioned string -> high-tension cable -> high-pressure gas.
Are LLMs really going to fall off in significance, or will it just be the nth newest incarnation of LLMs?
The function of what an LLM does (generative language) is what people seem to take issue with, but the function is here to stay, even if the next iteration has a different name or method.
The difference is in what other enabling technologies do you need to achieve it. Advanced technologies sit on a pyramid. One can build a bow and an arrow from sticks, string and rock. For reliable firearm we need chemistry and advanced metallurgy.
My view wasn't whether generative language is here to stay or not but rather will it continue to be a significant thing or not.
The technology involved in Juicero (or Pets.com, or many others) didn't go away. We could rebuild them any time we wanted to. Those things went away because they weren't able to make enough money to be an ongoing business.
Will AI? That is at least an open question at this point. (I mean, in fairness, Amazon's was an open question for many years too.)
The tech isn't going anywhere. Is there a path to a sustainable business model that uses that tech?
You may have an answer to that question. Can you prove it to someone who doesn't already agree with your answer?
Juicero wasn't useful therefore it went away. Generative AI is useful therefore it won't go away, just like how fire is kMy old yet it's still here to stay.
Juicero had customers that thought it was useful. Both "smoothie juicers" and "smoothie subscriptions" were big product categories equally before and after Juicero tried to unite them with a technological middleman. Kuerig, the Juicero of coffee, remains quite active and profitable (and wasteful).
There are likely _many_ paths to sustainable business models based on AI tech, that will come to fruition over the next decades. However whether they might not be as profitable as OpenAI and Anthropic are gambling on, is more uncertain.
I hope regular people will stop using "national security" and "national interests" as euphemisms and framing, and will call these things a psychopathic fight for power.
Assuming that some humans are worse than others because of their flag picture and that they deserve less access to resources is barbarism. There is no security in limiting access to NSA-style entities; it's an absolute insecurity for everyone but them throughout the whole world. How is that in anyone's "interests"?
We see every day now how suspicious bugs that look exactly like backdoors (i.e., Microsoft BitLocker) get exposed. That's in humanity's interests (and those of particular nations as a subset) — not being subjugated by small rings of professional outlaws. We need these instruments to defend people, everywhere. We don't need to give a leverage to any state psycho. Let's make everyone of them weaker.
This year looks very refreshing for software. My guess is because of the AI-assitance in grinding an unlimited amount of code. While I feel sorry for maintainers and developers who have a new CVE everyday, society seems to be sweeping away 20 years of backdoor development by shady companies and spies, making computing actually safe and trusted for the first time in our lifetime.
Who's pretending? If I share something with everyone for any purpose except one specific purpose that's endangering my project's existence that's not "pretending".
And even that's overstating it because there's no prohibition of any kind. Cloud providers are free to use SSPL licensed software as long as they release all associated platform code.
reply