julianeon

A subtle point I haven't seen mentioned here:

Most AI use cases involve the Internet. So let's pretend that OpenAI agreed w/your logic and did this. They'd have tons of businesses on the Internet, whose lifeblood is Internet traffic... and on the other side of this, controlling the spigot of all this Internet traffic, is Google.

All Google would have to do is to wake up one day and say "we've decided to depriortize low-quality AI businesses to protect the consumer" and they'd be dead.

That's a good answer that effectively rebuts the article's claim that Go was a bad choice imo.

I think you should split the difference and use vibe coding for the parts you don't care about.

Example, the UI for his two vibe coded example apps. Why not let AI do a single pass on that? 30s for a huge improvement. Other than the personal pride of saying you did it all, I don't see why not.

I think we've overcorrected.

For what it's worth, the "first patients were lab workers" part isn't established. What is documented is that the earliest cases cluster around the Huanan market. The lab workers attribution shouldn't be carrying the argument.

Before COVID, people were just unable to be roused out of their sleep about the dangers of cross-species virus transmission. "Wake me up when something important happens." By a certain standard nothing important had ever happened: so people slept on.

Then COVID hit. "Time to wake up." Suddenly people went from basically unconscious to hypervigilant overnight. Something which was a clear and present danger - the wet markets - looked uninteresting compared to the lab. Environmental samples taken there tested positive. In other words: don't sleep on the wet markets again - they are dangerous, then and now.

While paying attention was arguably an improvement over complete indifference, I don't think we landed in the right place.

I personally think it sets a bad precedent: you want to broadcast that valuable info will be treated as such. A hacker in the future will see this, compare the "precedent" price to the black market, and not even ask Microsoft the next time.

Have you tried OpenRouter and the DeepSeek-like models? If you try to optimize a little you could probably slash those costs.

I send a ton of requests and even reaching $10 for the month would take more calls than I have capacity to review and use. And as I said, that's for a ton of requests.

I think we tend to forget about the importance of reversion to the mean, socially.

We think: Germans are like this, the French are like this, the Dutch are like this... without thinking that, when one moves out of sync w/the others, its likely, statistically, to move back into line w/the others.

This has nothing to do with left or right specifically. It means that, whatever the mean is, if a country is not there, it's likely to move in that direction over time. It's more likely to move closer to that than away from that, measured over years.

The Dutch were very liberal and still are in many ways, but in such a situation, they are more likely to move in the "less" than "more" direction. And this is probably such a case.

I agree about the writing. As for the cover art though: I'm indifferent. It's not an important part of the book.

In the literary world, I would call using AI sentences in your novel a felony, but I'm not sure using it in a cover would even qualify as a misdemeanor.

Is the bar really higher? Those math PhD's can use GPT too; they benefit equally from AI assistance.

I could probably spend a whole month eating fresh bread there every day and enjoy it more than a Michelin starred restaurant.

So how would I use these Chinese models by API? I assume I'll pay by API call.

Since I think people are getting this confused:

He's saying that a full body MRI is so valuable, that if you got one and then smoked for a year, you'd be in the same place as you were before you started, health wise. No loss.

Obviously you'll come out way ahead if you don't do the smoking part: it's very valuable, in other words.

You know what's going to happen is some budding CEO will come along and read this and conclude, "I know the solution: my company won't give to charity." It will become enshrined as this principle in their company lore, that nothing can detract from The Work. Managers will parrot it, HR may even add it to onboarding. But it will be an empty gesture, because as the company grows it will become more and more multifacted, or 'distracted' if you will.

I'm not sure the process can even be stopped, if the company is successful and the new changes appear to be, and probably are, profitable.

To a physio therapist (the article example) that is a business meeting. That's what's strange here. That person isn't there because their you're friend: they're getting paid to be there, which makes it a business meeting, which makes a secretary, human or AI, appropriate.