MichaelGlass

I went to the comment section to look for this exact commentary (buried of course). But I would have never expected it coming from such an incredible specimen of meat such as yourself. Just a veritable buffet of boy right here. I have no idea what I'm typing right here. What should have been a text message (disappearing) will be archived forever in the index of shameful comments. RIP. Tushie pinches.

Yours,

Hot for (and approving of) Critical of Critical of (but hot for) Dentist

I see a lot of claims in this article without ... any proof?

Both can be true: - It's useful to anthropomorphize agents when predicting behavior and - we have to use specific language to specify what we mean.

What does the author mean by "confuse the models" ? Are they talking about not picking right information? Picking the wrong information? Losing their previous context / task?

Part of setting up a proper eval is also deciding what we actually mean ourself. What are we actually optimizing for? It's not, e.g. % confusion, %rubbish, etc.

The article does point to it: retrieval latency, accuracy, etc.

this sounds like a reasonable thing to do to a human being working in a call center /s

The typical counterpoint to this NIMBYism isn't, communism, but rather most of Texas (where there's loosening zoning law) or West Virginia (where there's abundant poverty and social problems but also abundant housing).

I thought it was funny. And sad.

The incentives you're talking about -- they're missing because of NIMBYist overregulation. The whole point of NIMBYism is to use regulation to hamstring the positive incentives in the market. "There's demand for twenty units here but the place is zoned for a single unit." or "There's demand for twenty units but the city demands that if we build a multitenant unit, we have to do a twenty-year environmental survey first".

Do you live in a place with a homeless crisis. Guess what: You're a citizen and you have some agency. Democracy can be a backstop to "pure" (or mis-regulated) market forces. I, for one, enjoy clean drinking water (and also: a good deal from a healthy competitive market).

Have you ever been to a great restaurant that happened to be on the wrong corner? Or been at a company where one change in execution made or broke the company? My guess: the founder lost interest but the employees still believed in the [impressive] tech. Because of the lack of traction: the cost of the tech wasn't prohibitive for the employees?

I’d much rather a useful AI-aided post that gives me insight than the almost daily pedantic unrelated gripe “interesting post but I hate the font”. This AI slop is bad but is it worse? In any case “bad” should be a reasonable bar to get over.

fwiw I don't have a problem with LLM posts. But I do agree that this is pretty generic. If you want to use an LLM to post comments: find a better prompt / workflow

I'm not sure it's so simple as "making it pretty costs more". I'd bet there are hidden utilitarian cost benefits as well. E.g., murals prevent graffiti. (No judgment concerning graffiti, but municipalities tend to pay to remove it.)

Or: maybe there is no large cost trade-off. Do beautiful manhole covers seen all over the world significantly affect the total cost of ownership?

(I thought the introduction was, if not outright funny, deserving of at least one chuckle).

love it! Just wanted to share my support.

I really like the slightly silly writing style! Reminds me of a toned-down Douglas Adams. Honestly, I'm not particularly interested in Janet but the style sucked me in.

I don't think the article touches on internal vs external hiring at all. They tried it but eventually didn't do it. But there's no value judgement -- it just seemed like they couldn't find a great candidate and then the author was eventually promoted.

Fwiw the same thing happened at my last startup. We did a search for a VP eventually promoted from within. I hereby claim, that statistically speaking, it definitely happens sometimes.

I guess the author disagrees with your last statement, > If you start at the bottom then you remain there because your skills are not valuable in the top leadership roles.

She says that she had the space to think more about strategy because the "people at the bottom" were doing an good job of keeping the company's infrastructure stable as they scaled. Maybe it's less about top and bottom and more about what types of problems people are good at solving. My tip: if you like planning and management and strategy, you should try to get roles, in the top, bottom, and middle using those skillsets. Lots of even introductory roles involve "manager", and lots of non-management roles are a great career path for many.

To be clear, “we” the cyclists want cars to be prohibitively expensive in cities. Presumably we the cyclists aren’t so homogenous.