jstummbillig

Man, if only there existed some central societal body with the authority to essentially freeze accounts and unwind a transaction like this. What a security feature that would be.

It's fairly hard to understand to me, but also entirely unsurprising that swapping one occupation for another would be interpreted as a net loss at individual skill level.

You guys are still doing things, correct? Is my experience so outside the norm, or is stuff still challenging?

Have you asked your system? Like, literally, "this new way of working is mentally overstraining me. What can we do at high level, that still is compatible with me in a competitive workspace?"

But they don't. If that was how making money with LLMs worked, everyone would just generate models that generate tokens that do nothing. But of course that is not how it works and they don't.

It's just really bad to do something with a lot of waste that someone else can do with less waste.

What market is going to care about the number of tokens somebody uses? That's like a market that cares about the number of if statements in a piece of code. It's nonsense.

Nobody is forcing Google to announce a model before they are cleared to release it.

It seems obvious that the AI stocks are an interesting buy, but I wonder how other people feel about picking between Anthropic/OpenAI/Google here. Looks all fairly random, given the wild swings and interoperability of the technology so far.

> The point at which new changes are more likely to degrade an application that's already excellent for its established use cases than they are to improve it further is the point at which we should consider the software "finished".

What I think: Being finished is not a property of the software. It's a function of skill of the maker to spot true opportunities to improve things, the skill of the maker to understand their own limitations to implement stuff (time, money, skill), and the current state of the software as it relates to the world.

It requires ongoing judgement and taste. If any of the inputs change, as they do, the answer changes.

When things get super trivial, you can probably consider them done at some point, but I hesitate. Let's for example just consider "cd" (the shell function). A typo like "cd /home/user/projcts" could offer a smart correction. If you went to "/home/user/work/clients/acme/backend/api" previously, through better usage of nav history you could maybe just get there by using "api".

Not claiming these off the cuff examples are great, and that they might not survive additional consideration, but it's fairly easy to see that they are arguable (and implementations like these already exist in some tools)

SpeedCrunch is much more complex and very far from inconceivably improvable, in my opinion.

Idk what that number does, other than stoke this kind of (very respectfully put) response. Seems fairly unnecessary/random.

> If that's true, how do you explain the observable pattern of many consumer applications degrading in UI functionality and coherence after a certain point?

Well, that's easy: Bad choices. The better something is, the easier it is to change it in a way, that makes it worse.

I agree with GP, everything can be improved, but that doesn't mean that you will succeed, or that you should try, for various, separate reasons.

I don't think they ever claimed that companies are easy, just because models are good?

1000 super smart humans don't just automagically make a good company, or make creating one easy. Idk, seems to just be confusing different things.

But: I am sure more of that will be happening in the future. Anthropic and OpenAI are building out their product portfolio, going into research (medical) more broadly.

Can anyone explain these to me? What does it do in practice that ChatGPT or Claude by itself does not. I look at it but it really doesn't click.

Paint me a real world picture.