gambiter

That's a decent article. My only issue is it seems heavily biased at the end, or at least he seems to misunderstand what the 'A.I. types in Silicon Valley' are doing.

> Computers should adapt to people. Asking people to make themselves more legible to software — to turn themselves into a database — is a doomed idea.

I've been in software a long time, and I do sort of see this trend, but I think it's because these are tools that build other tools. The interface has always been a 'best I can do for now' thing, with the focus on doing things that are useful. Computers were just calculators in the beginning, which led to more complex calculators, instruction sets, programming languages, operating systems, GUIs, interconnectivity, etc.

What people are doing today is experimenting, like they always have. They're putting their experiments out there so that others can use them and build on them. Some will use those tools to build other tools, and some won't. But over time, the experiments that work will get distilled and turn into real products that people who 'do not yearn for automation' will still want to use, so it seems like the value is there.

I guess the real question is whether they will create value that offsets the near-term costs, because I don't think the billions in investments are sustainable, and I'm not convinced the centralized data center paradigm is the right way.

They're talking about before it's configured by the user. It defaults to 'free' models so that the user can ask a question immediately on startup. Once you configure a provider, the default models aren't used.

Yeah, that's the point. Why did you think you needed to say it?

It's a GUI that works over SSH. There is a very valid use case for that.

> We can no longer design for ourselves, and we rely heavily on community feedback to co-design the right experience. We cannot build the right things without that feedback.

How can that be true, when you're deliberately and repeatedly telling devs (the community you claim to listen to) that you know better than they do? They're telling you exactly what they want, and you're telling them, "Nah." That isn't listening. You understand that, right?

There's a reason for people to hate it... it's a tool used for something similar to genocide, only instead of killing the individuals (like they did in the past) it is used to reduce the population out of existence over time. To get benefits as a tribal member, you need to have a blood quantum over a certain amount. That means native populations are guaranteed to shrink because there are fewer and fewer 'full bloods'.

It's also incredibly racist, when you get down to it. Does a white person need to be able to trace their lineage to claim they are white, or any other race, for that matter?

When you talk to Cherokee people, most of them are very clear that if you are part of the Cherokee culture, you're Cherokee. Throughout history, they have 'adopted' people of other races into their tribes, and those people married and had children. If an adopted white man married and adopted white woman, their children would be considered full blood, regardless of their skin color. So from a Cherokee perspective (and I assume any tribes that behaved similarly) the measure of a Cherokee is whether they are a part of the Cherokee culture, rather than what their genealogy shows.

> Just relax and use the strengths of both patterns.

That's exactly what he says in the conclusion...

> In contrast to this, most of my paper notes (and I've gone back to paper) end up being lost, and those that aren't lost are horribly disorganized.

Conversely, I've had lots of PDAs through the years, and any notes I took on them were lost long ago.

HN is so anti-Apple it's not funny. I've noticed if an argument makes Apple better, no matter how reasonable you are, you tend to get downvotes.

Anyway, I agree with you. (There are two of us!) Apple's stuff is built to be easy enough for a know-nothing user to get the basics done, and depending on your skill, you gain access to more and more over time.

And?

He also didn't say the camera on iPhones stays off when you're not using them. That must mean they're taking pictures of us and uploading them to Tim Cook's personal sex grotto for him to ogle us, right? I mean, he didn't say they DIDN'T do it, so...

That is to say... perhaps we could keep the paranoia and speculation to things that have a basis in reality?

As an aside, it's funny that both articles use the same stock image.

Granted, it's anecdotal, but I've personally seen university graduates that seemingly aren't capable of reading basic instructions or submitting a useful CV. Conversely, I've seen applicants with zero university who wowed during the interview, and went on to wow everyone as a very skilled employee.

I think the 'filtering mechanism' you speak of is vastly overrated, and I'm excited to see things like this happening. People should be hired based on ability and skill, not a piece of paper that they somehow acquired.

Ok... So, why would Apple receive the benefit of only exposing iMessage data in secret courts when Google, Facebook, and Microsoft all have to do it in open court documents?

I grew up saying it in Oklahoma. My wife (from Virginia) would always say, "It's BY accident, ON purpose." So just to mess with her I started saying, "ON accident, BY purpose", which sounds just as strange to my ears.