sky2224

If you're among the top 10% in the US, you're likely doing fine at the moment, but everyone else is struggling. On paper things may seem okay for the government and large companies reaping the benefits of this AI boom, but the current trajectory is not sustainable. Things will get ugly for everyone if we do not course correct on a number of issues like tariffs, Iran war, and more.

Gas prices are at an all time high, housing has never been less affordable, Intel stock just plunged a record 29% in its history, the US is now $40 trillion in debt... this is all just off the top of my head right now.

I think Microsoft laying off 60,000 people was going to happen regardless of this AI boom or even the economy being in the absolute shitter it's in right now.

When the economy was much stronger in 2018 their headcount was around 131,000 people. By 2020 that jumped to 163,000, and by 2022 it reached 221,000. I have personally heard of employees feeling like they had nothing to do.

With their current head count at around 218,000 employees (I'm excluding their Activision head count here), bringing things back down to 160,000 or so employees sounds a bit more realistic, especially given that Microsoft has not been expanding its range of products significantly. They're building out more in the spaces they're in, but they've been pretty conservative on new product launches compared to others.

I frequently have found myself saying, "People pay for that?! But xyz already exists," in the past, but overtime I've learned that (1) marketing is important and (2) if something reduces friction enough to get the wheels turning on something you're trying to achieve, there's always someone (actually a lot of people) out there willing to pay for it even if it's measurably worse than a self-scaffolded solution or even a really good solution that requires a lot of tinkering to get things rolling.

The difference to me is that the models from a decade ago would need to be trained to play the game. As far as I'm aware, Jev has had zero specific training or fine-tuning to play the game. It's simply told, "Hey, here are the rules. Play." That's it.

I work in manufacturing. I think this will be fantastic for stuff like SPC.

Huh, this explains why I've seen some pretty wildly obtuse far right posts being promoted to the top of the discover page on Snapchat.

> Over the past six months I tried using Claude, chatgpt, Grok and Gemini. At best I got reminders of how things worked. People online say they use them to write their code. The code they supplied to me has NEVER worked or was so convoluted that I threw it away and did it myself.

I've been finding AI either works great for people or is just awful, and I'm having a hard time pinpointing where the problem is. I don't think there's a big intelligence gap between us, so it's not like others wouldn't be noticing the things you're claiming when using AI. I genuinely believe your experience has been bad, but the part I'm trying to figure out is why it's been bad.

So my questions are: have you given things a fair shot? Have you tried turning things on its side to see if approaching AI usage a different way results in significantly better and more useful results? Do you actually put thought into what you're writing in your prompts (i.e., if I took your prompt and gave it to a junior dev, would they know what to do)? Are you just using the free models available online or do you have a dedicated integration into your development environment through Github Copilot or other vendor(s)?

I mean what I'm about to say with zero offense, but this honestly reminds me of how the elderly generation says, "technology doesn't work for me because it's always broken", and when you go and try to coach them on how to use the technology that's problematic for them, it's as if you're casting black magic.

I don't think AI is the second coming of Christ or that we're anywhere near AGI, but I do believe it's an extremely useful tool that people should be using.

Because when the government decides you've done something wrong from said video (even if you haven't), it's up to you to prove your innocence. That's a direct contradiction of what the US was founded upon, and creates a very slippery slope.

> Yet we constantly see all this devaluation of the practice of software engineering ("code was always the easy part" - bull-fucking-shit)

Whenever I've used this phrase or seen other people use this phrase it's never been in the context of software engineering. It's always been in the context of literally just spitting out code that a compiler will accept. Believe it or not, a lot of students in CS cohorts have significant struggles fighting the compiler because they just don't understand the language they're programming in and are slow to become proficient (if they ever do). Thus, a lot of people have this idea that writing code, and I mean literally just spitting out something that compiles and runs is hard.

Doing that is indeed quite easy today. That's what we mean by "coding was always the easy part".

Writing code that actually scales into something bigger and is constructed in a way that meets requirements and is flexible? That's a whole different ball game. That's software engineering.

I have been asked numerous times now: "Did you ask Claude?"

It's insulting.

I've been pretty interested in cars lately, and Engineering Explained has some great videos. They can stretch a bit longer than 20 minutes, but I'll just pause the video and come back to it later when I have time.

And given that I've been interested in cars lately, Delivrd is a channel of this guy that negotiates car deals for a living, and it's actually really interesting to see the different behaviors of car dealerships. His videos are longer, but you can kind of just skip around since it's basically just livestream clips.

And finally, I've been watching lots of older spongebob, south park, and family guy episodes. Man those are hitting the spot right now.

What questions in particular are you thinking of that's purely about the engineering and ultimately not the political agenda?

Why did you need Mythos to do this? There's nothing that seems inherently difficult about what has been built here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you've built a fancy looking site for a service that essentially generates a prompt for something that may be related to your business, and throws it into each of the major AI services (chatgpt, claude, gemini, etc) to see if it name drops your brand... and you want to charge $49/mo for that?

If you can get someone to pay you that, more power to you, but sheesh.