Yeah, there are lots of ways for this to be true but misleading:

The communications are not encrypted if they have the keys.

The encrypted communications are not the people’s. By the TOS everything is the property of WhatsApp and they can access their own ‘Business Records’ perfectly legally.

A third party, like a federal agency, isn’t WhatsApp. (WhatsApp can also voluntarily give their ‘Business Records’ to said agencies without warrant or subpoena.)

Meta isn’t WhatsApp.

An internal project with an undisclosed codename isn’t WhatsApp.

This hack brought to you by Raid: Shadow Legends and NordVPN

You can’t compare the cost of running a model at home to the cost of running a model operationally as a business.

I didn’t say running it at home, that’s ridiculous. The Pro model would not run on home hardware.

I said:

compare that to the cost of running the DeepSeek model on comparable hardware

Here, comparable hardware means an NVIDIA H100. A card who’s use has a well-known market price.

Why the If, we know they are running at huge losses.

Ok and I addressed that also:

if they are eating a loss then that means their inferencing is even more expensive so the DeepSeek model is even better than 1/6th the cost.

They are selling their inferencing at a loss, and therefore their inferencing cost is higher than the amount they charge. The 1/6th number comes from comparing the amount OpenAI charges to the amount it costs to run DeepSeek.

Since their costs are higher, then the ratio of their price to DeepSeeks is even better than the quoted 1/6th figure.

Because, in mathematics, if the numerator is fixed (the top number, i.e. the cost to run DeepSeek, which is known because you can run it yourself on the exact same hardware) and you increase the denominator (the bottom number, representing the cost of GPT/Claude) then the ratio becomes smaller.

Since you agree that they’re losing money on inferencing then that means the bottom number is unknown, but we know it is higher than the price listed on their website. So, the 1/6th ratio represents the upper bounds on the ratio of costs.

That doesn’t matter.

We know DeepSeek costs 1/6th as much as the cost that OpenAI/Anthropic are selling their model’s tokens. We know this because we can see their prices online and compare that to the cost of running the DeepSeek model on comparable hardware (because it is open weight).

If OpenAI/Anthropic are selling at a loss then it means their internal inferencing costs are even higher than the price that they list on their website.

This means that the DeepSeek model is at least 1/6th the cost, assuming that OpenAI/Anthropic are selling at cost. If they are eating a loss then that means their inferencing is even more expensive so the DeepSeek model is even better than 1/6th the cost.

We need to start treating software like Science. Open standards, Open source, collaborative development.

It’s a ridiculous situation that a single company gets to own and control the vast majority of the desktop computing market. This single point of failure has been responsible for an enormous amount of cybersecurity issues and spying.

The quicker the EU countries break that monopoly the better off the entire world will be.

Those trillions of dollars being poured into US tech companies is a large part of why they’re able to capture all of the political system and transition the country into this neo-fascisim that we’re seeing now.

There will be short-term chaos, but now you have a sovereign entity with a huge amount of money creating a market for solutions to those problems.

It also makes it so that standards become more important than whatever latest feature is included in .docx files. Fancy capabilities do not mean much when you can’t send the files to the government without converting them into a standards-compliant format.

With broad adoption of standards comes the ability for competition to build compatible products and services. Microsoft can’t just change Word or Edge in a way that breaks the software of competitors if nobody is trapped in their walled garden.

Operating and administering your own systems infrastructure requires that your business invest in the people to do so, this builds institutional knowledge which makes the important bit, the data and knowledge, portable. If the VM in the cloud gets too expensive you can use another provider, or you can buy hardware and run it locally. If the VM provider cuts your service you still have access to your data because you never lost control of it. Problems can be fixed by in house staff that don’t suddenly evaporate for arbitrary reasons or have service outages.

If your entire business depends on Microsoft services and it gets too expensive you have no options but to pay more. If your account gets locked then you’re out of business until you can get Microsoft to give you access again. If you want to migrate away, there isn’t another Microsoft to move your data to and you’ve replaced all of your technical staff with a support phone number, which isn’t currently accepting your calls.

“Age Verification” is just them attaching “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” to their push to have every single bit of information about every person on the planet.

https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity

K2, the synthetic analog of THC?

Bold move Cotton, let’s see how it works out for 'em.

woosh.gif

I e what you did there

Not as many as before, because we just don’t have the need.

The point was that we don’t know what we’re going to need in 10 years but we can see that we’re deskilling what we have with no guarantee that AI will fill the gap.

That means if AI doesn’t neatly fill that gap in 10 years, because it measurably does not now, we’ve lost the institutional knowledge and that can take a long time to recover from.

The net result is that we’re replacing competence with a thing that is measurably incompetent and while the odd individual company may benefit, the net result is that we’re collectively moving backwards with the hype-fueled hope that something will save us in the future.

It may be just another abstraction layer, but it could just as easily be a dead end. We won’t know until the future, but we’re burning the capability today.

I’m optimistic about AI, but this is a huge risk to take as a country and the people making that decision are ones that stand to benefit today regardless of the outcome to us all in the future.

If only we has a functioning political system to grapple with this issue… Maybe the EU will manage better.

(Until then I’ll learn a bit of German and Mandarin.)

I’m on side “We made Magic” and not “We own Magic (X Harry Potter X Hot Pockets)”

Think of it like a happy little coincidence

People were subscribing at the $49 plan because they were using $1000 in tokens worth

Companies were just eating that $951/mo loss so they could gain market share by burning their nearly endless pile of capital.

Now were on the cusp of the bubble bursting so the dominant players are now trying to extract revenue via rapid enshittification.

It’s not price fixing, that would be illegal, it just so happens that they’re all changing their business model at the same time. If they were doing illegal things there would be an investigation.

In completely unrelated news, didn’t you see the nice ballroom plans?

I’ll see you in Sort By: Controversial

I understand the arguments, today isn’t my first day on the Internets.

The comment that was responded to was in a conversation talking about the technical capabilities and how it doesn’t matter what the truth is on that topic because some people don’t want to hear it because they only can view AI in a 2-diminsional, black or white, net good or net bad way.

Then you showed up like a caricature of the type of irrationality that they were discussing.

I even explained the, very obvious, context that you breezed right passed and yet you’re still grinding that same talking point without a moment of self reflection.

An alternative is throwing shade on social media by trying to prompt inject them.

Yeah, but on the other hand look at the ballroom they’ve donated to (for completely non-corrupt reasons).