mattmanser

With regard to ‘provide a API/etc.”, companies have been trying hard to do that for a long time, even coming up with their own languages, like salesforce did.

It’s extremely hard to do, even on a basic level. And the worst part is actually the UI. You can go the Wordpress/shopify route where you allow client templates and it’s a huge cost for you to maintain. Or you can do some sort of automatic field generation and no-one’s happy.

Not only that, but your product ends up in a straight jacket, where you can’t fix any fundamental data structure mistakes because half your client integrations will break.

Of course you are, they don't sell you the model itself. That's fiercely protected. They clearly sell you it's output.

It's the English bit that I'm referring to as gibberish.

It only makes sense in a wider Claude session, and even then it's like he's got Claude set to super-boot licker mode.

> An interactive companion to our ongoing exploration

Eyes glazed over again.

Did you even read your own site before you posted it?

One of the first pages I opened:

> Smoking-gun proof of plant-label ingestion: in Row 2, the central cut root is labeled okol (f88r.15), and directly underneath it on Line 2 (f88r.19) the recipe writes...chokol daiin qoekol qoekol qockhol okol cheol...!

It's just gibberish.

To be fair, how many products this old even have a revert update mechanism?

You're confusing their arbitrary monopoly money for their product.

The product is the output, not the tokens.

Ha, even you quoting the Claude-ese made me zone out of your comment and switch tabs off hacker news. As soon as I saw "What the test measures".

I only realized why I'd switched tab after I'd done it!

Err, the LLM vendors are selling it for money.

The UK has done this transition moderately successfully, albeit over 10-20 years. Not the AI bit, the amalgamating sites bit.

It had the opposite effect you're describing. Not quite everything has transitioned though, for example there are little bits of the limited company maintenance process that seems to be on old systems.

The only big hiccup that I've personally seen is that they've never really solved the "user id" problem, we seem to have had 3 different schemes in that time period. The early one, the government gateway id, I at one point had 3 different ids because some departments screwed up and issued you a new one the first time you used their service, when you already had one.

I am known for analogies. I use them all the time to try and explain things to less technical people.

Sometimes it's building a house, sometimes it's writing a book, sometimes it's the difference between a Ford and a kit car, sometimes it's how you build a bridge.

None of them stand up to full scrutiny. You can pick every single one apart.

That's not the point of analogies. The point is to explain just one of the many aspects of software engineering in a more understandable format to the listener. Software engineering is nothing like building a physical thing. But some of the many, many problems and complexity you hit have physical product analogies.

Don't stretch analogies too far as they all pop.

They asked the AI for a list of different styles.

The author then picked them out, not the AI. For curiosity I assume.

Tao's point is that we have a method already.