choppaface

I like the assembly analogy, but it’s not quite _that_ abstracted from the higher-level language, yea? At least not for prompt-to-webapp.

It’s perhaps important to learn the consequences of certain design and impl details? Because Sonnet-class models can often miss these more easily than Fable-class.

That said, refactoring and bug-fixing is faster than ever. So I’d argue LLM coding is actually quite a bit different than having a compiler. In ways we’re still seeing ?

I mean sure but I’m curious to what extent and why it’s so obvious to some. I haven’t seen this sort of language in a marketing post before.

“self-evolves through feedback loops”

Does this mean they distilled Claude? Sounds like what Claude Code will often do.

or maybe they don’t actually cache (fully) but lie and just don’t charge the user right now. at least half the users, who are probably also using the most similar tokens / prompts, wouldn’t really know the difference in latency (or care)

i meant the credit card number itself

credit card itself can’t be used to ad targeting. But plenty of proxies make this point largely irrelevant.

besides proof-of-work, is there any realistic alternative to fingerprinting?

Because Jane Street is unabashed about greed, and yet they do not let that greed lead them into attempting to pollute and derive us of our attention every day.

While I like that you debunked the article . . . I want to hear an argument for where the SWE job market can grow in a post-Claude world. I might expect something like: “CEOs are naturally greedy. So after trimming the team, they then recognized (versus “replacing” people with AI) they could actually accomplish _more_ with more engineers, each empowered with AI.

But I do like folks calling out the OP for being AI spam.

It’s not cutting corners. Apple does most of their testing using strictly internal resources, like secret “mini malls” in the Silicon Valley area. They fail because this testing biases their sampling; users must sign draconian NDAs to participate, among other things. These samples are effectively biased due to Apple’s corporate culture regarding secrecy and competition. So, Apple actually works very hard. It’s just they culturally prefer a lot of techniques that their competitors (e.g. Google and Facebook) have throughly proven as inferior.

But is Google better? Not really, they killed a lot of good products like Reader.

But is Facebook better? Not really, Cambridge Analytica and Metaverse and .. facebook products are disposable.

But I think these Apple UX bugs are misdiagnosed. Yes they are atrocious. But think about how atrocious and non-representative and non-competitive Apple’s testing population is.

Appreciate the nature and scale of the internet... and also how it's changing though, yeah?

While I agree with much of the article's thesis, it sadly appears to ignore the current impact of LLMs ...

> it’s never been easier to read new ideas, experiment with ideas, and build upon & grow those ideas with other strong thinkers on the web, owning that content all along.

But, "ownership" ? Today if you publish a blog, you don't really own the content at all. An LLM will come scrape the site and regenerate a copyright-free version to the majority of eyeballs who might otherwise land on your page. Without major changes to Fair Use, posting a blog is (now more than ever) a release of your rights to your content.

I believe a missing component here might be DRM for common bloggers. Most of the model of the "old" web envisions a system that is moving copies of content-- typically verbatim copies-- from machine to machine. But in the era of generative AI, there's the chance that the majority of content that reaches the reader is never a verbatim copy of the original.