> I cannot reproduce this in any version of copilot? Because LLM-based service outputs are fundamentally not-reproduceable. We have no insight into any of the model settings, the context, what model is being run, etc.
> One fascinating aspect of LLMs is they make out-in-the-wild anecdotes instantly reproducible How? I would argue they do the exact opposite of that.
> because MCP brings _nothing_ to the table that I could not do with a "proper" API using completely standard tooling. This is what drives me crazy and has stopped my tinkering with MCP in its tracks: what is the point?…
> By then comparable or even better models will easily run on edge. What are you basing that on?
From prices that were already losing services money. If you aren't making a profit, lowering prices is only about trying to capture market share before you're forced to increase prices to remain solvent.
> What about money? The hundreds of billions being sunk into AI. > You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything in this…
> I want to live in a world with more options and freedom to choose And you think that AI will be beneficial to that want?
No you can start with actual money.
I don't love that this is the conversation and when these models bake-in these silly scenarios with training data, everyone goes "see, pelican bike! super human intelligence!" The point is never the pelican. The point…
That's a rather crappy product naming scheme.
> Because Europeans don't take smart risks. Because they over regulate. If you said you can look at the state of VC funding in the US and call it anything approximating "smart risks" I don't know that I'd believe you.
There's no way to know who's funding it (but being at least state subsidized is highly likely), and you we don't really know how much it cost (but in any case it's still less than OpenAI is spending). On the other hand…
> More capable AI systems make the world better. Support that. Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.
> That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" > The specifics are unknown, but they might... Hold up. > but some assume that they do it this way. Come on now.
That assumes that they've been similarly situated with an offering that isn't profitable and has no path to profitability. What company selling a primarily AI-based service right now is making a profit on that service?
All very fair caveats/heads up about Ed Zitron, but just for context for others: he is an actual journalist that has been in the tech space for a long time, and has been critical of lots of large figures in tech for a…
> You think AWS are going to subsidies your usage of somebody else’s models Yes >indefinitely? No, and that's the point.
> when a discord server adopts some LGBTQ propaganda. There it is.
> It is also additional value creation. Give some concrete examples and stats? > It also leads to automation and efficiency, even if it isn’t a fully linear path. Ditto.
then you lose a large amount of functionality and value. That's the point they were making.
> In almost every company the usage of AI is becoming more and more valuable. It's certainly becoming more common, and there are lots of people who want it to be valuable, and indeed believe it's valuable. Personally, I…
> who doesn't want that to be real. I think that's exactly the point the person you're responding to is calling out. That's a massive bias.
Only if you don't examine that proposition at all. You still have to review AI generated code, and with a higher level of attention than you do most code reviews for your peer developers. That requires someone who…
That were written by people. Non-human characters in stories still exist to illustrate something about people.
I don't think that's a useful lens to view the problem through, or a useful way to have a conversation about MCP security. That a system is hard to secure doesn't negate the need for it to be secure. Though I agree…
> I cannot reproduce this in any version of copilot? Because LLM-based service outputs are fundamentally not-reproduceable. We have no insight into any of the model settings, the context, what model is being run, etc.
> One fascinating aspect of LLMs is they make out-in-the-wild anecdotes instantly reproducible How? I would argue they do the exact opposite of that.
> because MCP brings _nothing_ to the table that I could not do with a "proper" API using completely standard tooling. This is what drives me crazy and has stopped my tinkering with MCP in its tracks: what is the point?…
> By then comparable or even better models will easily run on edge. What are you basing that on?
From prices that were already losing services money. If you aren't making a profit, lowering prices is only about trying to capture market share before you're forced to increase prices to remain solvent.
> What about money? The hundreds of billions being sunk into AI. > You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything in this…
> I want to live in a world with more options and freedom to choose And you think that AI will be beneficial to that want?
No you can start with actual money.
I don't love that this is the conversation and when these models bake-in these silly scenarios with training data, everyone goes "see, pelican bike! super human intelligence!" The point is never the pelican. The point…
That's a rather crappy product naming scheme.
> Because Europeans don't take smart risks. Because they over regulate. If you said you can look at the state of VC funding in the US and call it anything approximating "smart risks" I don't know that I'd believe you.
There's no way to know who's funding it (but being at least state subsidized is highly likely), and you we don't really know how much it cost (but in any case it's still less than OpenAI is spending). On the other hand…
> More capable AI systems make the world better. Support that. Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.
> That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" > The specifics are unknown, but they might... Hold up. > but some assume that they do it this way. Come on now.
That assumes that they've been similarly situated with an offering that isn't profitable and has no path to profitability. What company selling a primarily AI-based service right now is making a profit on that service?
All very fair caveats/heads up about Ed Zitron, but just for context for others: he is an actual journalist that has been in the tech space for a long time, and has been critical of lots of large figures in tech for a…
> You think AWS are going to subsidies your usage of somebody else’s models Yes >indefinitely? No, and that's the point.
> when a discord server adopts some LGBTQ propaganda. There it is.
> It is also additional value creation. Give some concrete examples and stats? > It also leads to automation and efficiency, even if it isn’t a fully linear path. Ditto.
then you lose a large amount of functionality and value. That's the point they were making.
> In almost every company the usage of AI is becoming more and more valuable. It's certainly becoming more common, and there are lots of people who want it to be valuable, and indeed believe it's valuable. Personally, I…
> who doesn't want that to be real. I think that's exactly the point the person you're responding to is calling out. That's a massive bias.
Only if you don't examine that proposition at all. You still have to review AI generated code, and with a higher level of attention than you do most code reviews for your peer developers. That requires someone who…
That were written by people. Non-human characters in stories still exist to illustrate something about people.
I don't think that's a useful lens to view the problem through, or a useful way to have a conversation about MCP security. That a system is hard to secure doesn't negate the need for it to be secure. Though I agree…