You might be interested in the IBM PC compatible and Wintel wikipedia pages. This is a super high level timeline, but it is more interesting to get into the detail.
At a high level, the IBM PC platform were very well documented & sold well, to the effect of producing tons of software and peripherals add-ons ("PC Compatibles"). This led some other computer companies to reverse engineer the proprietary IBM BIOS, allowing them to run the same software and use the same peripherals. Because these were clean room reimplementations, IBM didn't have a legal case to prevent their sale.
Fast forward a bit, IBM's attempt at a new, closed platform, PS/2, flopped. People wanted their more open hardware. Windows became dominate enough that all the demand was for x86 based hardware that could run Windows. Microsoft was happy to work with many vendors.
The PC is very open today, but Apple survived. Atari ST and Amiga probably survived longer than you think as well.
AI slop is hurting my community in a different way. We have an internal viva engage community for quick development how to type questions at work. More frequently, instead of asking "how to" questions to the crowd to crowdsource answers, people are reaching out to me directly to ask me why the solution AI suggested doesn't work.
That people trust AI over an organizational knowledge is bad enough. I fear that AI is turning people generally antisocial.
This is happening at my workplace and it's incredibly annoying. We get support tickets asking us to troubleshoot AI written scripts. The funny thing is that most of the time, it would be faster for the customer to tell us what they want to do in plain english and have us make it for them. Hell, if they make an honest attempt, we can point them in the right direction and teach them.
It's frustrating because we're bundling this shitty AI with our product so we're just making more work for ourselves. Then there's the push from leadership to use more AI...
I don't think it's making people antisocial though, people just like easy solutions to their problems. We're giving them what seems like an easy solution. But it's easy for them, not easy for the reviewers.
Testing is expensive, subjective and favors people with resources to game the test. When thinking about stuff like this, we should aim for something more universal, with the understanding that this is not a moral judgement on a person.
In the context of the article and of controls, I think we should worry more about controls on those in power (i.e., politicians) than others (i.e., voters).
It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit. There's no about face needed...
> It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit.
Don't they? They release the llama model weights, they do things like this:
Someone leaked the llama 1 weights before they were released. That doesn't explain why they would release the subsequent versions except that they wanted to.
What's next, do you think parents providing for their children is an agenda, merely so the parents can feel good about that glowing feeling about being a good parent?
Yes it is, and the narrator told us so. There's no need to put words in my mouth; I agree with the narrator that you can want to do a good thing for many reasons. In this case, the narrator tells us why he did what he did.
I'm ctrl+F'ing for "agenda" on the post and getting zero results, sorry. I don't need to "put words in your mouth", you are literally the one who used the word "agenda".
You don't seem to understand what the word "agenda" means in social interactions. It has a negative connotation, it is an ulterior motive, something you are hiding from the other person because they wouldn't like it.
That doesn't apply to normal positive-sum social interactions. Again, see my example about parents and children.
You are misunderstanding the meaning and usage of the word "agenda".
"Machiavellian" is probably a better term for a book that describes how to manipulate people (for your own benefit).
I don't think a red pilled book would teach you how to manipulate people. I think it would be an attempt to manipulate you towards a specific (red pilled) view of the world.
This rant about radiating happiness towards people without expecting something in return...
The narrator explicitly says he gets something in return though. I think it's important to understand that seemingly charitable acts are never 100% altruistic, and while that's not necessarily a moral judgement, it is still important to understand people's motivations for doing things.
As long as you’re open to their motivation being “it makes them feel good” or “they like making other people happy.” The cynical view is that everyone is fundamentally deeply selfish.
If you go deep enough, you can convince yourself of that, but you lose what Carnegie talks about. You create your own experience of other people by carrying assumptions like that.
At a high level, the IBM PC platform were very well documented & sold well, to the effect of producing tons of software and peripherals add-ons ("PC Compatibles"). This led some other computer companies to reverse engineer the proprietary IBM BIOS, allowing them to run the same software and use the same peripherals. Because these were clean room reimplementations, IBM didn't have a legal case to prevent their sale.
Fast forward a bit, IBM's attempt at a new, closed platform, PS/2, flopped. People wanted their more open hardware. Windows became dominate enough that all the demand was for x86 based hardware that could run Windows. Microsoft was happy to work with many vendors.
The PC is very open today, but Apple survived. Atari ST and Amiga probably survived longer than you think as well.
reply