We Europeans are very well aware that we need to strengthen our position in the world, both economically and militarily. I would say we are making progress on both. China is not happy with recent EU decision for example.
Let's see how far China and US will go when access to the European consumer market will be resticted.
Let's see how well China and US can adapt to modern drone warfare when Ukrainians have the expertise and can share it with the rest of Europe.
We have to step up our game for sure, and everyone in Europe knows it. But the race is definitely not lost yet.
Europe is making big investments in military, there is no denying it. And comparing to the 1980's? Maybe look at how the borders have shifted since the 1980's, and then we'll talk again about how Western Europe is "declining". All those USSR satellite states and plenty of SSR's are now part of us, or want to be part of us.
I agree we don't have high economic growth, mainly an issue with scaleups and regulation. There are also plenty of initiatives there, like EU Inc.
We are waking up, so claiming that we are sleeping at the wheel is plain false.
> We Europeans are very well aware that we need to strengthen our position in the world, both economically and militarily.
It doesn't seems like this. It hasn't even been ten years since Europeans ridiculed Trump for making such calls, and it doesn't look like anything has changed.
> Let's see how far China and US will go when access to the European consumer market will be resticted.
Why do you think access to the European market is so critical?
> Let's see how well China and US can adapt to modern drone warfare when Ukrainians have the expertise and can share it with the rest of Europe.
Ukraine is a deindustrialized country, corrupt at every level. Their experience is worth little, and if you think they understand what a drone warfare is, wait until you see China in action, which has thousands of times more capable engineers and can produce drones that are better, ten times cheaper, and in tens of thousands times greater volume.
I'm in camp 3, where sometimes I don't really care how good or bad the code is. For internal tools for example, you can let the LLM crunch out code really fast, you can validate output but don't even have to look at the code. These kind of "weekend projects" can get finished in an hour or two, and so are really 10x.
For bigger production ready code, you indeed have to guard the architecture. But for the code, in some corners you can get away with sloppy code, as long as it kind of works.
What I'm saying is, code doesn't always has to be great. You will just have to judge the places where it needs to be high quality, and other places where you can get away with sloppy code.
That judgment is an essential skill of an experienced programmer, and it is required at every level of the big picture, from high level architecture decisions to the development of particular features: what should I polish and what needs to be developed fast? How exactly should I cut corners in the safest way?
Pretty much every single detailed prompt made after trial, error, and refinement is tailored to a specific LLM. They will all perform worse used with other LLMs than a similar prompt tailored for the second LLM would perform, and at times quite poorly.
How well would it work to ask the working LLM to rewrite the prompt to get the best results? Do the models understand enough about themselves to do that?
Claude has a /product-self-knowledge skill, and I am sure the others have something similar. So yes, it is possible if you work with care, as necessary with all things LLM related. There are hundreds if not thousands of skills on github that were created just this way.
It's not like you aim to do it, you are just in a feedback loop improving results for the tool you are using. It is inherent in any prompt developed through iteration.
We have 3 big competitors in the space: Anthropic, Google and Microsoft. I think they can all use the same base configuration. So it's not that we are out of options here.
You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free.
Even if companies didn't have copyright protection on their source code, that doesn't mean they'd post it all on the internet for anybody to freely download.
No, not all of them, but some companies, many organizations, and plenty of individuals would.
Not everything has to be done for a profit. Plenty of us make software, art, and technology because we find it fun and interesting to work on, and because we want to live in a world that is richer for it.
Removing draconian intellectual property laws that mostly only benefit the giant corporations that lobbied for them isn't going to stop me from doing so, and I doubt it would stop many others.
I only mean what I said. Anything else you infer is your own bias.
I don't know why you are taking such a hostile position towards someone you have never interacted with, but you are welcome to believe what you will. I don't feel any need to prove or justify my actions to Internet strangers. I've participated in the FL/OSS software movement long enough that I still put the FL/ in front of the name.
I don't sell my thoughts, they are freely given. If everyone behaved this way, there would be no need for copyright (or copyleft). I choose to engage the world in the way I wish it to be.
A key component of the GPL is the requirement that source of code of programs that use the GPL code be made available. Without IP laws, how would you achieve that goal of the GPL?
I mostly addressed this in a sibling comment, but I wanted to add that if copyright wasn't preventing companies from copying and building upon the works of others, I find it likely that the industry would be more free and competitive.
Source code is a recipe. You can't copyright recipes by themselves, but that hasn't caused any sort of chilling effect in the food and hospitality industries.
I agree with you that removing copyright protections breaks the GPL. What I think most responses to my comment miss is that we wouldnt NEED the GPL without copyright. Copyleft only exists so that copyright cannot be used by companies against users.
I know Stallman isnt the most popular on this forum, but history has sorta proven he was right, time after time.
This reminds me of a joke my neighbor used to tell:
If catch a burglar in my house, I will ask them what they are doing. If they respond with "I'm searching for money!", I'll suggest "Let's search together, and whatever we find, we split 50/50"
you can replace the pelican and the bicycle with your preferred animal and a means of locomotion. I bet you can come up with a pair that definitely wasnt in the training data
Let's see how far China and US will go when access to the European consumer market will be resticted.
Let's see how well China and US can adapt to modern drone warfare when Ukrainians have the expertise and can share it with the rest of Europe.
We have to step up our game for sure, and everyone in Europe knows it. But the race is definitely not lost yet.
reply