The article's title is terrible. The article itself seems to have all the right pieces but connects them in weird ways.
Big tech wants to make AI cost nothing to end-users maybe, but Google and Microsoft want the cost of hosting AI to make your eyes bleed so you don't compete or trim any profits off their cloud services. As the article points out Facebook does not offer cloud services so its interests in this case align with mom and pop shops that don't want to be dependent on big tech for AI.
But Mistral was way more useful to mom and pop shops when they were trying to eke out performance from self-hostable small models. Microsoft took them out of that game. These enormous models may help out boutique data center companies to compete with big tech's cloud offerings but it's beyond a small dev shop who wants to run a co-pilot on a couple of servers.
Microsoft and Google don't want you to learn that a 7B model can come close to a model 50x-100x its size. We don't know that's even possible, you say? That's right we don't know, but they don't even want you to try and find out if it's possible or not. Such is the threat to their cloud offerings.
If they did Microsoft would have made a much bigger deal of things like their Orca-math model and would have left Mistral well alone.
The title "Why big companies like Meta want to commoditize open source and open weight models to increase demand for their complimentary services" did not quite have the same ring to it to be quite honest
The Gemma of Clement Farabet the French-American student of Meta's French-American LeCunn? I wouldn't be surprised if they share an ideological affinity. The big players allow some breathing space for the top brass so they don't walk. Look at the timing of Andrej Karpathy departure from OpenAI. I'm sure he might give a lot of different public answers, but it just so happened that it coincided when the oxygen started getting a little stale around there. [0]
This is the forest for the trees situation. The correct analogy is Chrome and ad blockers. Google didn't tighten the screws until the bean counters started saying it was starting to bite.
But only until. Facebook rugpulled even React, a (once in the past) javascript library. I can't wait to see what they will pull out when they become the AI overlord.
Not "take them out", I said they took them out of the small model game. They did that by giving Mistral free compute, so Mistral turned its main focus to large models. Their announcement after the Microsoft deal was literally "Mistral Large".
>Statistically there should be at least one or two.
Well, if the statistics takes into consideration the notion that a lot of women don't even apply to certain jobs thinking they're under-qualified should we be surprised if there are less than we initially expect?
I appreciate the point of being proactive, since the point above can be somewhat mitigated by HR reaching out to prospects instead of relying on the existing applicant pool. But it seems everyone involved in the hiring process should be as convinced as you about the mid/long-term benefits of having women on the team, otherwise it's a uphill battle passing up perfectly acceptable candidates when there is so much work to get done. It's much easier when everyone believes that the X factor of having a women on the team far outweighs the delays and the accumulating negative effects of business in the short term.
The statistics say that 23% of software engineers in the US are women.
That’s what I’m referring to. If there are no women on a team of 10 I start questioning whether the team is hiring for their biases or if they’re doing a good job of setting them aside.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at with your last paragraph. Do you believe that women being hired on a software team causes delays and negative effects? Because I do not and that has never happened in my experience. I would hope you wouldn’t similarly falsely claim that male teachers and nurses are less qualified than their female peers.
The reasons for the numbers in the global south are different. It's not necessarily a preferred choice through empowerment, more so a profession taken up to propel oneself from poverty.
Seconded by someone on the opposite spectrum, who has had to deal with the fallout from people who use DB pretty rarely. Just last week a couple of them flew into the country and decided to take DB (after being forewarned of the risks) from two different cities to same destination (not a Euros 2024 hotspot destination). Both randomly canceled and missed wedding reception.
This is purely anecdotal but has anyone else noticed it is quite rare to see a job posting based in Amsterdam that accepts fully remote employees. My guess is the Dutch government is providing some strong incentives to companies to prevent the proliferation of fully remote jobs.
I might be completely off base here, but they seem to be providing some incentives that exceed the incentives that cities in the States provide companies since the US hasn't been able to stop the trend entirely.
Or is it something in the Dutch culture that finds remote work off-putting?
I might be going on a limb here, but none of those answers save one would be interpreted as a "No" in Britain. Brits comment if you please.
The save one of those in the list is "“I will consider it in a forward-looking manner,” which feels to be me not so much as a "No" as more a "Why of course why wouldn't I take a look at at it with all this leisurely time I have but in the interim can you please just kindly fuck off please thank you very much."
This article does little to help navigate the situation it seems. Part of the problem is not providing multiple versions of what "Yes" would look like I think.
I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question: “I’ve brought a new project plan. What do you think?”
Is the question "What do you think?" supposed to be interpreted as asking a colleague "Can you tell me what you think?" or is the question asked to their boss and is to be interpreted as "Do you like/approve my business plan"? I haven't gotten past that snag.
The article, ironically to someone who is still as clueless and ignorant as prior to reading the article, seems to still have failed to provide enough context to non-Japanese readers in order to be helpful.
>I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question
The article goes on to say in Japanese, "our sentences don’t have to be grammatically complete in order to make sense. This is especially the case for verbal communication." The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
>The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
Yes, but what is the translation of that rejection in English as a response to the question being asked? Is it "No, I won't even bother taking a look at it" or "No, I think your business plan is trash but I'm going to pretend I haven't read it yet and hope you get the message."
Daily sync can be on chat instead of meeting. For new remote personel meetings, explicitly state and have those specifically for the benefit of new remote workers. E.g., tell the team you will be doing daily status as a team for a week for the benefit of the new person.
