This study is just asking managers, they didn't talk to devs. Also how is it a monopoly when 80% expect to be using non steam distribution channels in 5 years? Maybe I'm missing something because the source study isn't available without giving them your name and email but their stats look contradictory to me and their method is... Well corporate managers aren't really devs IMO.
They do not think or reason or really even communicate. They are a very advanced auto-complete. Their owners actively lie about them to get investor money and they are no more sentient than a Sim.
If you absolutely demand change you need to have an answer to allay the manager's fears that the changes you require will be a net negative for the group; that unserious gossipy annoying group that is setting the current bar for success.
From the inane gossipper's perspective you could appear easily distracted, argumentative, and unserious. You've declared that their stress management rituals may be such a hindrance that you'd reject a promotion to avoid participating. That answer could gain you enemies even if you don't even interview if it's not kept confidential.
I hope this is received as contingency planning and not an insult. I don't think those things and I also hate work gossip, but in this scenario you're the out-group until you get in. It behooves you to become a quiet friend instead of gossip fodder. I hope you can play this field successfully and good luck!
Accepting that your premise is true for individual texts, there seems to be a fairly flat number of poisoned docs needed regardless of total training corpus size. So the question is how to sneak that many docs into the corpus.
I genuinely think that being ranted at by my principal engineer early in my career and having to defend my ideas did more for my understanding and problem solving than any amount of explanation could have. Good faith disagreement is like a mirror that lets you see from perspectives you'd never have access to alone.
I agree, seems stupid! I'm still having a hard time accepting this as a scandal next to embedded ads for Wired's own content literally calling AI salvation though:
Compared to, "EZPR has four clients, none of which, Zitron claims, is in the business of generative AI." They even diffuse their own point near the end, "In truth, Zitron’s two jobs aren’t in as much tension as they might seem to be. The PR wheedling and the critical needling come from the same place: He loves this stuff. He’s just mad it doesn’t work better"
And MOTHER FUCKER, now when I'm looking into one of those clients it turns out they were represented by Zitron and company when they were pre-LLM form fillers per another EZPR employee: https://knowtechie.com/donotpay-has-a-new-gpt-powered-chatbot-for-bill-negotiation/ . So Zitron worked with them Sept2020-Oct2021, and the article shows LLM incorporation happening a year later?
In OP's link Baldur makes the point that you can't do PR and news reporting without creating a conflict of interest because "You have two readers: the archetype that represents your likely audience and a tech oligarch’s opposition research team." but then just repeats Wired's message? HoW cOmPrOmIsEd‽¿?
Sorry, I got irritated that my time was being wasted the more I dug into this but it's not at you.
Removed
Perplexity.ai is offering a free month of advanced AI access
