It doesn’t schedule tasks, doesn’t deal with physical memory, it doesn’t initialize hardware or interface with it on a low level. This is just an app that lives in user-space, nothing more.
Calling this an OS is like calling Gmail an OS.
It doesn’t make any sense.
But since OSes are notoriously difficult to define [1], half of America added AI slop to diets that were already repulsive to begin with, regurgitates the chyme, and passionately feeds it to their peers, you may even get away with it nowadays.
Well it sort of does. It allocates sandboxes and schedules apps in them. It handles loading code from storage and turning it into running programs with state.
> it doesn’t initialize hardware or interface with it on a low level.
Instead of devices it manages interfacing with external services (Gatekeepers are like drivers).
I didn't choose the name but I do think there's a fair analogy here even on a technical level.
> Instead of devices it manages interfacing with external services (Gatekeepers are like drivers).
This required stretching the terminology so much that now, by your definition, any software that interfaces with anything else in a restricted/controlled manner is OS-like because that's just like interfacing with hardware.
I get why they chose the word - this is marketing, they want to make it appear foundational, as a cornerstone of every interaction you do. But I don't think it's a fair comparison - the OS is the lowest level layer of any computer (barring firmware and the likes) and it manages nearly everything that happens between the user and the computer, the OS is mandatory to use the computer and it runs basically everything. This is just an app - a very sophisticated app that manages other things, but still just a layer over existing systems. If they get to call this an OS, then maybe Microsoft could call the bundle of their Office suite and all the enterprise software an OS too, I'm sure there's enough functionality, depth, features and app-driven oversight over data for it to qualify.
The addition that the last names are Asian is insane and just put there to make the opposite party look bad. Ironically, all it does is reflect the spirit of OpenAI.
Agree but how many times are the same articles and opinions reaching the top. It feels like we’re in a loop and it’s boring me out reading the same thing over and over and over again.
I'm not that guy but I've advised end users submitting tickets to prompt inject the importance of the ticket so that it gets triaged higher by lazy people only using AI and not actually reviewing.
Not sure how efficacious but I know the reviewer is just relying on the AI decision.
Or they could just explain in the ticket why it's important instead of trying to trick an AI? AIs and humans will both read your explanation of why we should care and use that to prioritize.
If you have to lie to get your tickets fixed, that sounds like either you're bad at explaining why things are important, or you're working on things you shouldn't be.
Yeah, but now it’s more confidently slowing us down… It kind of sucks. Someone else said that non-SMEs can’t filter through the noise and may actually mistake the AI slop for signal, which worsens the problem.
None of the popular providers have real moat, which is very much problematic for OpenAI and Anthropic; their operating margins are deeply red and they do not have the same reserves that FAANG/MANGA has. FAANG/MANGA does the same to kill fair market competition in the long run.
This is one of the ways in which model providers are attempting to artificially create moat where there is none.
There are only functional objections to this.
This is fundamentally antitrust material. However, this is “acceptable” in contemporary USA because the FTC has been gutted to follow Trumponomics.
No, we have benchmarks for (pseudo-)objective measurements of capabilities. We have flashy news stories on repeat for marketing.
The point is that they are separate things. If you start mixing them up, analysis becomes more biased and less objective.
EDIT: And do not mistake this for transparency of ClosedAI either. Their incident report was so generic that no one serious can learn much from it anyway except that “a zeroday” was allegedly used. Very helpful…
We also have evidence that Anthropic distilled all human info they could get their hands on for the development of all their models.
Distillation should be fair game given the (current) game of LLM training. Yes, as a model creator you probably want to protect against it, but it does make you a hypocrite.
> The developer OpenAI has said it would be impossible to create tools like its groundbreaking chatbot ChatGPT without access to copyrighted material, as pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products.
Calling this an OS is like calling Gmail an OS.
It doesn’t make any sense.
But since OSes are notoriously difficult to define [1], half of America added AI slop to diets that were already repulsive to begin with, regurgitates the chyme, and passionately feeds it to their peers, you may even get away with it nowadays.
[1] https://os.ecci.ucr.ac.cr/slides/Andrew-S.-Tanenbaum-Modern-...