spyckie2

Makes sense - Flash models are (mostly) distills of the frontier model capability.

If they were able to make flash 3.8 so good off of their 3.1 pro model, flash 4 will probably be really good. But ofc you'd want your pro model to be as strong as possible in coding so that flash can take all those gains and efficient-ize them.

To be fair, I think this is very doable with modern technology. If you've seen their rocket landing videos the technology is quite similar in nature.

The gimmicky part is not the engineering but the fact that it is not a flying car but a proof of concept of a flying car in a very controlled environment, with no regard for cost, with no actual viability of real world use.

Its like the breakdancing humanoid robots in China, a cool feat of engineering for sure, but it makes you think that robots can do human tasks, when the reality is much further away.

How much does the car actually weigh? It feels more sleight of hand than actually a flying car.

To be completely fair, write this kind of paragraph for every AI category. Would love to see your take.

Could it just be that Demis was checked out of the race and they lacked leadership?

I'm at the stage where I automatically assume everything as AI assisted, but am still willing to engage if there is some effort to humanize.

There is less than zero effort on this one. I don't even think the author read the output himself.

My brain at some point refused to read past paragraph 3 and I just felt defeat.

An article talking about astroturfing but so tone deaf as to not even rewrite its ai generated content to be human readable.

It truly feels like the dead internet.

DHH is the creator of rails and you are listening to a very cherry picked take, like all of the internet these days.

His whole argument which I agree with is summed up in a section where he shows a clip of himself 21 years ago saying “look at how much code I’m not writing” and that is the core thesis of rails. And agents provide a better solution than rails with less downside and more upside. So now that the core reason for rails has been overturned, instead of holding onto an old inferior solution to a problem, he has moved on because he is a value driven pragmatist at heart.

He literally built rails to write code as close to English as possible. Expressiveness, get code out of your way so you can focus on solving the non technical problems, stop getting stuck in engineering decisions and focus on business and UX, etc. Now whether his values were truly accomplished some people can argue but what those values are is pretty clear.

DHH created rails for himself and he has been unabashedly firm on his own values, it’s Steve Jobs esque, provides great clarity and focus but pisses people off who deviate from that focus.

Lots of people jumped on rails but don’t share DHH exact values. They see rails as a community ownership not a DHH ownership and they believe in the framework beyond just a tool to solve problems. More specifically they rely on it and helped build it up well beyond “just a tool to write code more like English” to a robust, well maintained usable platform you can build and run sophisticated real world applications with.

DHH has left rails because it no longer is the right solution for his set of values, that’s it. Others in the community rely on Rails to run their systems and will continue to do so until the end of time because let’s face it Rails has been pretty mature since rails 5/6 and despite all the exciting “progress” it’s just a solidly good framework that doesn’t really need to keep up with the trends.

If you read the article lots of these policies originate or are modeled after other countries policies. The us isn’t exactly a shining beacon welfare state.

Their economic policy article is quite good:

- need for faster, better and more accurate measurements of the things we care about

- 3 scenarios of impact ranging from mild to major disruption

- mild policies are all sensible, like expanded unemployment insurance and Earned Income Tax Credit

- major disruption policies are also pretty logical, emphasizing owning a share of the profits of AI

- AI evaluators to sort and weigh the policies for their effectiveness

It looks like to me a lot of thinking, research, and work put into the piece.

I know people will gripe at using AI evaluators to score and weigh policies for effectiveness but if you read any amount of research papers, they do researcher evaluated scoring, which translates to "me, a 26 year old PHD candidate who hasn't held a job yet, and my roommate who stayed up all night with me to tell me his vibes on the subject".

It is IMO wrong and lazy to dismiss these pieces as being the same level as Dario or Sam's blog posts / speeches / call to actions, these are actual research papers.

Is there a risk of an AI that we can’t turn off?

I think you're missing the point, which is not that every human interaction is worth preserving, but that convenience has a hidden cost.

People would rather not spend time and effort to help their neighbors.

People would rather not pick up trash they see on the side of the road.

People would rather not take accountability.

If these things become the default action, then you've traded something for the convenience, and that something might be non obvious until you feel it is missing.

The neighbors one, I think a lot of people will admit a certain loneliness and desire to have community back. I don't think a lot of people will actually give up the inconvenience for it though, the sedative nature of convenience is one of its core problems. The number of people I hear say with conviction they can't imagine living anywhere other than CA because they couldn't stand the weather anywhere else...

lol a customer literally types in “Seth Godin” on the internet and gets to the product. But for some reason Amazon sponsored ads is a toll booth BLOCKING the merchant from meeting the customer unless the merchant pays 1 dollar???

How exactly is Amazon preventing the customer from meeting the merchant? What is the precise mechanism?

Respectfully, this is nonsense. The consumer experience I have is that Amazon sells products at lower prices with better quality, support, variety and transparency than pretty much every other store out there.

Sponsored products do not dampen my consumer experience of Amazon. Paying 2$ more for the exact same good at Target or some other online store does dampen my experience.

If I as a consumer am paying a tax for sponsored products, then when I go to Target why isn’t the price cheaper? Let me give you a hint: you wouldn’t even get a shelf at target. Let’s stop pretending that Amazon is the only evil storefront that market manipulates for profit at the expense of consumers. Which store doesn’t? Which marketplace doesn’t?

Amazon gives you the option to sort and their sorts are actually useful. Ever use sort by best rating? It actually shows the best rated products. Sort by lowest price and prime? You can find good stuff down there.

Call a spade a spade, Amazon delivers on its price, availability and service. Just because the market is crowded and you need to spend money to get your stuff in front of people doesn’t mean you can make up ideological drivel.

Probably the most egregious human written article I’ve read in the ai era.