Okay, then self host an open model. Solves all of the problems you highlighted.

I guess this really depends on the solution you’re working with.

I’ve built a voting system that relays the same query to multiple online and offline LLMs and uses a consensus to complete a task. I chunk a task into smaller more manageable components, and pass those through the system. So one abstract, complex single query becomes a series of simpler asks with a higher chance of success. Is this system perfect? No, but I am not relying on a single LLM to complete it. Deficiencies in one LLM are usually made up for in at least one other LLM, so the system works pretty well. I’ve also reduced the possible kinds of queries down to a much more limited subset, so testing and evaluation of results is easier / possible. This system needs to evaluate the topic and sensitivity of millions of websites. This isn’t something I can do manually, in any reasonable amount of time. A human will be reviewing websites we flag under very specific conditions, but this cuts down on a lot of manual review work.

When I said search, I meant offline document search. Like "find all software patents related to fly-by-wire aircraft embedded control systems” from a folder of patents. Something like elastic search would usually work well here too, but then I can dive further and get it to reason about results surfaced from the first query. I absolutely agree that AI powered search is a shitshow.

Alright I don’t like the direction of AI same as the next person, but this is a pretty fucking wild stance. There are multiple valid applications of AI that I’ve implemented myself: LTV estimation, document summary / search / categorization, fraud detection, clustering and scoring, video and audio recommendations… "Using AI” is not the problem, “AI charlatan-ing” is. Or in this guy’s case, “wholesale anti-AI stanning”. Shoehorning AI into everything is admittedly a waste, but to write off the entirety of a very broad category (AI) is just silly.

Yeah, had to answer a few of these in a personality match assessment when I was greener. Answered them truthfully and… never got a response from the company. But things like: are you willing to grind yourself into dust if the need arises, do you perform 110% 24/7 or just enough to eek by, and the classic “do you work to live or live to work”.

I would think that any business having this on an employment screener would be a huge red flag. But also, part of being a seasoned (read: weathered) corporate wage slave is answering nonsense like this with the corpo-appropriate response and NOT your actual thoughts.

My limited searching found that Amber alerts are generally controlled by regional police organizations. Indigenous tribes tend to not mesh well with local law enforcement, and as a result indigenous-related crimes tends to fall through the cracks due to lack of coordination / jurisdiction issues.

This sounds like an effort to allow alerts to be more (?) controlled by indigenous tribes, but still distributed in the manner that Amber alerts are.