The "soul's crushing work" they are crying about is actually not enough of work or not enough interesting work. Not the sole volume. They sound like angry kids.
I was kinda surprised by that. I thought that people working there we're just conformists which have the FAANG money and are generally not bothered by company's actions.
People I read about in the article sounds like spoiled babies.
Indeed. Zero sympathy for someone helping creating this man his slop machine.
It's kinda funny that their main problem is that they don't have enough work.
>“It's literally the gulag,” one of the employees claims. “You have zero purpose in life all of a sudden, you barely interact with anyone, you just have these tasks every week."
>Across the company, more than 1,600 employees have signed a petition demanding that Meta stop a recently launched initiative to monitor US employees’ clicks and keystrokes to generate AI training data.
>Some employees are being asked to finish two tasks per week. These involve generating complex software coding problems to help AI scientists better train and evaluate the performance of the latest frontier models.
Just ouf of curiosity. Is there any business model behind it or it's just for fun? I mainly struggled with my AI projects to give them care after I finished them, so I'm interested in your direction.
I am guessing the people most disappointed with AI in the long run are the ones wanting some sort of arbitrage where they can generate products with low effort and then expect people to pay for access to them based on a paradigm where creating software at all required a lot of effort.
not intending to slam you personally, but the fact that you finished your projects and then lost interest in them is very indicative of projects done for the sake of generating something with AI just because you could.
I think the people who succeed will be the ones who are willing to develop a project with high effort, and then use the LLM to help with some of that effort. not just because in a world where everyone has access to the same AI code generators the effort is the value add, but because a good product genuinely does require a lot of human input and supervision being l beyond simply churning out code.
I agree. In my case none of the projects was something paywalled and we're developed with sole intent to learn. Some we're data heavy which we're most of the work and I didn't had any experience before.
What I meant is the "aftercare" when product is publicized. Like promoting it in some way, maybe using a social media to promote it properly? No idea. This is another thing I know absolutely nothing about, so It would be wise to learn it. I usually just let them hang to be indexed by google and chatbots which drives some traffic, but it's basically just running app not a product.
What I meant is, that OP spend quite a lot of money on that so I was curious if he have any plan. :)
I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else, because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT 5.5.
Well, who could have possibly seen that coming right from this person. I'm so much waiting for this ridiculous AI psychosis driven grifters just to stop bothering other people with their bullshit.
>“It’s only the top 1 percent who matter. These are the people who are going to be the value creators” when, in his view, AI soon completely transforms just about every aspect of economic life.
>Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification
reply