This seems completely believable to me. They have tons of research scientists and chemists who do this for a living, and had access to the best equipment (even back in the day).
It probably didn’t take them terribly long to do it
Well by the time they eat the trillionaire I'll be dead. So be it. I don't think some site hosting microblogs is gonna be the downfall of such wealth, though.
When you say plagiarizes, do you mean they are publishing their own docs without ads? Or you mean when the AI is reading the docs instead of a person they ignore the ads?
People don't just ask AI to produce a Tailwind app, they also ask AI specific questions that are answered in the docs. When the AI regurgitates the answers from the docs they don't visit the actual docs. Like the Google answer box in search results stealing clicks from the pages that produce the content.
The answer is "it depends". If someone printed out the documentation and bound it together to sell without permission? Yes. The mere act of converting from one medium to another usually isn't transformative.
The test for writing a book is whether the author applied their own judgement in the creation of the book. Even if some explanations of concepts are inevitably similar the structure of the book, the example code, etc. will reflect the author's judgement and experience.
An LLM is incapable of authorial intent. It's not synthesizing the docs with a career of experience and the input of an editor. It's playing madlibs with the work of one or more prior authors.
Totally agree with this, and I think it's what will likely happen. IMO Tailwind got to the point where you are adding dozens of classes to the tag and it gets a little unwieldy. There are some options to get around it but if AI just does't need it it's even better.
In short, the appalling treatment of renters in Australia is due to the chronic undersupply of housing; if landlords had to compete for tenants it would not be possible to mistreat them in the way many currently do.
There is also scope for better regulation of tenancies and indeed the Victorian government has passed some reforms in this area.
They don't abandon their money makers. That's the thing people don't get about the Google graveyard meme, they only cut things that obviously aren't working to make them more money.
Half of the things they build don't even have a chance to make money. But then people end up depending on their products and they they shut it down or sell it.
Completely self driving? Don't they go into a panic mode, stop the vehicle, then call back to a central location where a human driver can take remote control of the vehicle?
They've been seen doing this at crime scenes and in the middle of police traffic stops. That speaks volumes too.
Incorrect humans never take over the controls. An operator is presented with a set of options and they choose one, which the car then performs. The human is never in direct control of the vehicle. If this process fails then they send a physical human to drive the car.
> presented with a set of options and they choose one
> they send a physical human to drive the car.
Those all sound like "controls" to me.
"Fleet response can influence the Waymo Driver's path, whether indirectly through indicating lane closures, explicitly requesting the AV use a particular lane, or, in the most complex scenarios, explicitly proposing a path for the vehicle to consider. "
So they built new controls that typical vehicles don't have. Then they use them. I fail to see how any of this is "incorrect." It is, in fact, _built in_ to the system from the ground up.
Semantic games aside, it is obviously more incorrect to call them "completely self driving" especially when they "ask for help." Do human drivers do this while driving?
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Stopping safely and waiting for human input in edge cases is fine (Waymo). Crashing into things is not fine (Tesla).
and there is a linked article about Waymo's data reporting, which is much more granular and detailed, whereas Tesla's is lumpy and redacted. Anyway, Waymo's data with more than 100M miles of self-supervised driving shows a 91% reduction in accidents vs humans. Tesla's is 10x the human accident rate according to the Austin data.
It probably didn’t take them terribly long to do it
reply