yunyu

When you speak or type, you speak one word at a time. When you move, you actuate one muscle at a time.

Does this mean that a single incorrect word or twitch will completely derail the task you’re trying to performance? Or will you, like any other intelligent being, recognize it and compensate?

It's pretty clear reading from these comments that most HN members have a 2023-era impression of LLMs.

Modern chain-of-thought models with RL post training on verifiable tasks + realistic environments + rubrics are worlds apart from models trained on a simple next token prediction objective.

More money goes into the rubrics and RL environments than individual training runs themselves.

(Yes, at inference-time LLMs still output words one at a time, much like human speakers. But don't confuse the mechanism with the training objective.)

On the flip side, lightning puts the part that wears out most quickly (the retention springs) inside the device, while USB-C does the opposite. The same argument can be made for both sides.

Mercor has around 5 customers that make up 95% of its revenue. Anybody who needs to know about them already does.

What do you guys do differently than Profound or Airops?

You can just use it outside of the API?

I was trying to point out the selection bias in your experiences, since your queries are probably lower-intent than for the typical consumer. Good discussion though.

...that was my point? You are so close to getting it.

You are talking about consumer marketing. I am talking about B2B marketing for prescription medications, enterprise SaaS, etc. These are separate markets and the analogies don't quite hold here - the scam problem etc is practically nonexistent for high-LTV goods with high bid costs, and newcomers are typically well funded enough to periodically outbid incumbents (or implement better targeting). The big-ticket B2B products that one hears of from word-of-mouth are usually the worse ones, since there is rarely any "going viral" to speak of.

> That the engine's website puts a different thing that whatever the search algorithm thought was the best thing at the top because an advertiser paid for it to be so, is strictly worse.

This is not clearly worse than the result being selected by the whims of some arbitrary Google engineer, or being easily gamed by SEO blogspam bots. At least the advertiser stands to lose something if they bid incorrectly.

>How long had ChatGPT been out before OpenAI's first ad for it?

Just because some products were able to grow organically doesn't imply that paid marketing never benefits startups. This is a false equivalence.

I also find it funny that the vast majority of your example products (everything except Huel or Aeropress?) make a lot of money from advertising. Maybe consider why they still exist.

Yes, advertising is more relevant and works better for people with power over large purchasing decisions as the bidders have more at stake. Maybe you aren't in the market for plumbers or running shoes, and are instead looking for "download vlc media player". This doesn't contradict anything I said?

My favorite form of definitely-not-advertising :)

Your value to advertisers is probably less than 1% of that of a single doctor or corporate VP. It makes sense that your queries are lower intent - this is hardly contradictory. Fortunately, you are an edge case wrt how firms are actually spending their money, so we’ll leave it at that.