argee

I'm not a sceptic, I'm a realist. I know how the magic trick is done. That makes it a bit less magical. As for sophistry I was talking about the LLM output itself, which has done a number on many people.

The goalposts have never shifted if you didn't shift your definition for the oligarchs and kept it stable.

If Opus could autonomously create Fable, and Fable made Mythos, and so on, it would be AGI. The fact that people need to be involved, means it isn't.

I think your cool only applies when you get quite granular. OTOH, everyone knows "teenager slang" is cool and "working in tech" is (now) cool, or "being a brain surgeon" is cool. So as I said in my original comment, those are two different "cool"s entirely.

Besides, some things are done for reasons other than economic efficiency. It would be more efficient for people to relinquish their apartments to some company that will ensure near 100% occupancy while you aren't home. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a single human being who would rather share their space like this than own and manage their own condo (apart from those who get scammed by timeshares).

Humans simply don't work like that.

I would like to know how “efficient” Altman's $27 million mansion is.

It used to be cool for nerds. When it became cool for normies is when these people joined in. The latter is what society actually considers cool.

> If you are considering a role in some part of Google (either as a new hire or an internal transfer), you should ask probing questions about the organization itself to try and understand its specific culture and how that culture is embraced by the people inside it.

A bit easier said than done, when there's a bad director no one is going to tell you in the interview. On the other hand they are unlikely to praise them either, so you can pay attention to the omission if your questions are specific enough.

Sam Altman should've said only one person companies can reach a billion dollars in the future, as everyone else is too busy feeding each other awful LLM outputs.

They're just going to rationalize answers to this. You already know the real answer. FOMO, and fear of the Red Queen effect.

Can't you just look at memory bandwidth for generation?

Thanks for the reply. It would be great if you could introduce yourself somewhere in this comment section or in your HN profile, I cannot tell whether you intend to speak on Karthik's behalf.

If there was value to be had there, you would. It's an indictment of the cited value, if you wouldn't. So are you asking me to argue my own point again? I don't think your position is adversarial to mine?

If you are arguing effort versus value, let me escalate: I don't think even the call leader of an Amazon sev one would be interested in seeing such screen recordings, when all of Amazon.com is down, and when workable solutions would be worth putting Herculean effort behind.

I want to know where the value comes from, then, just because it got easier to query such data doesn't in itself make it valuable. You would be better served by having Opus look over your code after Sonnet made mistakes, rather than having Opus first digest whatever (potentially poisonous slop) Sonnet cooked up before looking at the code.

Would there have been value, pre-LLMs, in attaching a screen recording of what a developer did in the three hours before posting their diff (be it Google, stack overflow, reading a book, or trying a sandbox experiment) to their PR? The PR is a synthesis of their efforts, and it would actually be more effort to review and understand their screen recordings, wouldn't it? In my experience striving for fewer artifacts is the right move, so long as they are sufficient to describe the outcome. What exactly is lost between sessions and code that would help you debug something?

Also, if your business has agents writing most of the code, why would your business care about human reviews at all? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all. Wouldn't you be better off looping your agents into your support tickets and autofixing bugs? In that scenario, isn't it more confusing for an agent to deal with sessions + code rather than start fresh with the code?