Possibly a good time to remind people that the default value of jobs.<job_id>.timeout-minutes is 360 (minutes), meaning that your hanging job will cost $0.72 before it times out.
Even the discussion side has been pretty meh in my mind. I was looking into a bug in a codebase filled with Claude output and for funsies decided to ask Claude about it. It basically generated a "This thing here could be a problem but there is manual validation for it" response, and when I looked, that manual validation were nowhere to be found.
There's so much half-working AI-generated code everywhere that I'd feel ashamed if I had to ever meet our customers.
I think the thing that gives me the most value is code review. So basically I first review my code myself, then have Claude review it and then submit for someone else to approve.
I don't discuss actual code with ChatGPT, just concepts. Like "if I have an issue and my algo looks like this, how can I debug it effectively in gdb?", or "how do I reduce lock contention if I have to satisfy A/B/...".
Maybe it's just because my side projects are fairly elementary.
And I agree that AI is pretty good at code review, especially if the code contains complex business logic.
>Now the internet will be flooded by Disney character's videos
How is Disney okay with this anyway? They've sent their lawyers after daycare centers who dared to paint a picture of a Disney character on their walls. Why are they suddenly going to ignore me prompting a video of Winnie the Pooh hitting the bong?
Disney, is well aware of the writing on the wall that copyright is going to continue to become increasingly harder to enforce, as generative ai distances itself from brute mimicry, and because infringers can generate new versions faster that takedown notices can be filed. Their alternative is to either be steamrolled, or leverage their IP while it has worth in order to latch on to the AI market. Plus, they give a solid explanation: it is free advertising when there are guardrails on how the characters can behave/say/portray (which is the advantage of the deal — I assume a similar one with Google, Microsoft or Apple will be forthcoming too).
When a true “leader” big or small emerges, every bit of capital will flock to it, leaving a burned out nest of ai company husks. But hey…maybe this time will be completely different. (And upon consideration, I think this is exactly why. All their deals are with the husks, while keeping their IP to leverage with the winner.)
They have to consider China. Right now Z-Image Turbo lets you render stills of any popular cartoon character you like, at frankly-disturbing levels of quality, doing almost anything you like. That's a relatively-tiny 6G-parameter model. If and when a WAN 2.2-level video model is released with a comparable lack of censorship, that will be the end of Disney's monopoly on pretty much any character IP.
Also, notice how Disney jumped all over Gemini's case before the ink was dry on the OpenAI partnership agreement. My guess is that Altman is just using Disney to attack his competitors, basically the 'two' part of a one-two punch that began by buying up a large portion of the world's RAM capacity for no valid business reason.
Mickey Mouse's character design as of 1930 is in the public domain. But if you ask an AI image model for "Mickey Mouse", you'll probably get something based on more recent versions of the character which are still copyrighted.
Scroll down on this page[0] and you'll see the different Mickeys and most of them are not under copyright. You got Steamboat Whillie + gloves but no Fantasia Mickey or later. Definitely no red-pants version.
Unsurprisingly Disney knows what they're doing and they have 95 years to modify a character's looks (and how the public imagines that character) before it enters public domain.
I have a feeling that the long-term economics of this don't really work. OpenAI is burning money and Altman has already gone out in public saying how Sora-generated content is being made in large volumes for little audience.
>People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences.
If OpenAI is going to pay Disney money for Winnie the Pooh smoking crack, I get the feeling that the money is going to come not from Sora profits but from companies that invested in OpenAI. Companies like Disney. Not that Sora is going to generate any profit if I can generate a video for free and I then post it on Discord instead.
> I have a feeling that the long-term economics of this don't really work. OpenAI is burning money and Altman has already gone out in public saying how Sora-generated content is being made in large volumes for little audience.
Let me introduce you to ponze scheme. He is feeding the hype, that's all that matters right now. More and more cash... The only real winner will be Nvidia when the bubble explode.
Yes, that's what makes Disney investing in OpenAI as part of this so confusing to me. Sign a licensing deal that means OpenAI pays you every time someone uses your character? Absolutely. Who cares if they're burning cash, as long as you get your payday it's all good. But investing in the company means their cash burning is your problem too. I don't know why you'd do it.
It’s ego and desperation for one last hurrah. Disney has a history of being a corporate governance nightmare - which Iger ironically contributed toward fixing. He’s undoing all that now.
>People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences.
That was the issue even the biggest Ai fans pointed out from day one. People aren't gonna post their videos on Sora. They are gonna make it on Sora and post on TikTok. A watermark won't change that reality (and I don't think ClosedAI is worried about brand recognition and taking a hit for that).
Likenthr rest of the scene, it's so utterly tone deaf.
It's not just that: generative AI tools make it so easy to make content that you run into discoverability problems. The pool of available content becomes huge but without a way to market or otherwise differentiate yourself, no one will likely stumble across it.
We already see this dynamic with the "vanity press" pay-to-play record labels / distributors like DistroKid: the vast majority of their catalog has never been played or was only played to test the initial upload. Huge numbers of tracks have a tiny number of views, with many literally never played. "Democratizing" content creation predictably does this, and it's frankly bizarre it wasn't anticipated.
The brand rot will be disgusting here. I thought "family" companies like Nintendo and Disney hit so hard, against their best interests, because they didn't want the next pregnant Elsa or Nazi Mario to cause a storm on their carefully tailored brands.
Seems like Nintendo still has that long term thinking. Disney was just waiting for the right price.
I mean, Disney can do basically whatever it wants and nothing will change. If my gay, Muslim friends are still willing to patronize the parks, despite their very real disagreement with how Disney conducts its business, then what hope is there for the exhausted, overworked mom whose child won't stop wailing about watching Frozen? This will absolutely tarnish the brand, and yet people will still consume Disney slop.
Disney has a long history of donating large dollars to ultra-conservative legislators and presidential hopefuls (they also donate to liberal candidates as well). As for the Muslim portion, it’s most likely due to Disney donating $2 million to Israeli Non-profits and condemning terrorism while making no statements or donations to the Palestinian people’s or groups that attempt to provide to the Palestinian people Israel was bombing in the closing months of 2023. The BDS movement has and keeps Disney on their list of boycott targets to this day.
But Sam Altman has already said that they need to be able to ignore copyright laws because the Chinese are going to ignore them too. How is access to Disney IP a moat if everyone involved (except Disney) gives no shits about copyright?
You can just switch from `count = 1` to `enabled = true` (or vice-versa, works back-and-forth) for a resource and tofu will automatically move it next time you apply.
I’m not sure I understand. You refer to the conditional resource fields normally - without list indices. You just have to make sure the object isn’t null.
There’s some samples in the docs[0] on safe access patterns!
And you don't get the annoying array form for the resulting resource with the `enabled` syntax, right?
EDIT: Oh just realized the sibling asked the same, but the doc doesn't state that clearly, although it seems to me that the doc implies that yeah, it doesn't use the array form anymore.
Worth switching to Opentofu only for this, then! I fuckin hate the count pattern for conditional present/not present that leads to an array of size == 1.
>For nearly all cases, Django’s built-in template language is perfectly adequate. However, if the bottlenecks in your Django project seem to lie in the template system and you have exhausted other opportunities to remedy this, a third-party alternative may be the answer.
>Jinja2 can offer performance improvements, particularly when it comes to speed.
It's not really that expensive. GitHub Enterprise is like $21/month/user while GitLab Ultimate was $100/month/user the last time GitLab published prices. These days GitLab Ultimate is "contact us for pricing" while the cheaper GitLab Premium is $29/month/user.
I guess Bitbucket is cheaper but you'll lose the savings in your employees bitching about Bitbucket to each other on Slack.
Do we work in the same company? That said, I really don't understand why everyone hates on Bitbucket. I really thought it was _fine_ from a user perspective. Now we're on GHE and I find it a sidegrade at best.
Now for the people who were operating Bitbucket, I'm sure it's a relief.
As a user, I found Bitbucket to be a lot harder when it comes to searching and browsing code. The Markdown formatting is also more limited for documentation and the lack of Mermaid support in Markdown documents was shocking to see considering how both of the primary competitors (GitHub and GitLab) have implemented it.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-a...
reply