The version numbering here is an absolute mess. Chandler/Monica 2 is actually Monica v5.x, which presumably means this newly announced Monica 3 is Monica v6.x?
Chandler/Monica 2 (v5.x) was a bit of a disaster for Monica. The communication around it was confusing from the start: they stopped accepting pull requests for the original version to focus entirely on the new release – which then never materialised beyond betas. That killed development of the main version for a while, until they eventually started releasing minor v4.x updates alongside the v5.x betas.
On top of that, they said you might not be able to import data from Monica v1–v4 into Chandler/Monica 2 (v5) due to a database layout change. Reading that sort of killed my use of Monica as a product.
I’d been a heavy user up to that point, but the thought of burying my data in a version that might be abandoned soon really put me off.
I’d been a small but fairly consistent contributor before Chandler/Monica 2 was announced, but between the confusing roadmap and possible data migration barrier, I haven’t contributed since.
When you say rest of the world, what countries exactly do you mean? I'm from the Czech Republic and the process is also insurmountable for a regular company. You either go through a middleman or you can apply for a license (only 4 companies in the entire country ever got it and it costs upwards of $50k in legal fees just to file the application).
Can you just link us to the relevant pieces? I rather not search on my own and read wall street propaganda on why it's bad (which is what I'm finding and not interested in).
are they? given this has been happening frequently over past year and there's been minimal clear communication on their end on how they plan to address this
Azure is at capacity; GH offers a lot of services for free or heavily discounted. Especially when its public repo. These aren't profit generating for Microsoft, so they are not the priority with the capacity Azure has available. GH is probably struggling with these capacity and budget constraints. They also still have some AWS and non-azure DCs in use.
Once Azure's massive spend is online things will slowly get better.
biggest thing i wish was present in more discussions about models is people providing more specifics on their setups vs. vague descriptions of harnesses
more future proof except for the fact that these guys are infamous for breaking changes
i really don't think after there's much interest from the larger community after multiple annoying RR breaking changes -> Remix -> Remix 2 -> React Router v7 -> now an entirely new framework.
have always wondered about this especially post Cambridge Analytica where Meta imposed really stringent requirements for API use even for personal things while it was blatantly obvious that internally it was a different story
But thats the thing internally it wasn't. The user dat controls were really quite good.
Its not a mistake that this data got into contractor hands, it was a decision that took lots of time, numerous legal reviews and signoff from Zuck himself.
they are essentially Lyft in early Uber vs. Lyft days. They are marketing themselves vaguely as being "better" because they're "more ethical" but their actions make it clear that they're not much better than OAI.
Except Lyft didn't kick you out in the bad part of town simply because you mentioned the word lollipop. Claude will terminate your session, peg you to 100% usage, and more, to stop you from using the service you paid for.
so we're trusting the guy who created tech to make it easier for bots to exist on the internet to then sell us the solution to fix the problem he made worse?
I've seen this take a lot and I don't really understand it. IMO if there's anybody to blame here, and I don't think there is, you could go back and assign blame to the authors of the Attention is All You Need paper, or Google as its publisher.
Once that was out in the wild it was only a matter of time before someone productized it, but there was no conceivable world in which nobody decided to, and there was no guarantee that it was going to be public in all cases. The basis for LLMs is so simple in hindsight that it's not even impossible that it'd been independently discovered and privately weaponized for many years before 2017.
> Once that was out in the wild it was only a matter of time before someone productized it, but there was no conceivable world in which nobody decided to...
By this logic, we cannot blame anyone who is the agent of anything that we deem to be inevitable. Just because it is eventually going to happen, that means you are completely non-culpable for being the person who does it. This could obviously be extended into justifying pretty much anything.
Yeah but I think that's precisely what makes it fuzzier than a zero-sum blame game. Given that this technology was going to be in public hands no matter what, the how matters more than condemning the first visible target. Instead of ChatGPT, the first wide use of this tech could have been a private endeavor to secretly kill the internet. The fact that anyone can see and use it, and learn it's hallmarks, arguably helps innoculate some of the populace against the worst things it could be used for. We're able to sit around and complain that the discourse has been poisoned by robots instead of blindly wondering why otherwise-indistinguishable fellow humans are all saying "delve" suddenly.
I'm not sure I have a specific point here other than that I think it's interesting that he became a target, not necessarily that he's actually blameless.
Ironically, of the only thing he did create (ostensibly), a copycat never went anywhere "social network", its claim to fame was the app (preinstalled by paying carriers) spamming your entire contact book with SMS invitations to join their failing network. Splendid privacy record!
Trying to make money on selling the solution to the problem you caused (while also probably tracking literally everyone with the solution) is much worse than causing the problem and doing nothing about it.
