Month 1 - 6 months to AGI

Month 2 - We will Replace all jobs

Month 3 - Okay maybe only the SWEs, programming is solved

Month 4 - Announce model that is too dangerous to release

Month 5 - Releases dangerous model

Month 6 - This is it! We will replace AIs with more AIs (*secretly files for IPO)

AI is here to stay, like it or not but it is not the solution to everything. If it is, what is Anthropic's moat? A better model? I don't see any ecosystem being built by them, as MCP is almost obsolete except for some very niche use case. And they're doing stuff that a non-profit version of OpenAI would do. Can we trust a for-profit company to stand against their investors during a conflict of interest? Because running a company for maximum profit versus being ethical is two different end of the spectrum.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48400847

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48379237

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

And if it is a chore, we already have some tools to speed it up, only if it is worth it though. Placing a button is actually easy if you get all the design system down usually with a component library, visual regression automation and testing automation.

If a team doesn't have tools and automation in place, AI might speed them up a little but it adds a layer of complexity, i.e. everyone have to manage their own workflow and tools. And when you try to align the team, you get the tools and automation that the team is supposed to have in the first place.

As for ideation, the problem isn't the speed of information ingestion but the ability to connect and understand different parts of the information, which require thinking. More information at times is just going to hinder the ability to think. For example, it is obvious to developers why there is a rate limit for the APIs but for PMs it might not be obvious. They might ask the AI whether or not a rate limit can be removed easily, how many days if you vibe code it and ignore the possibility that the rate limit might by abused by users just to improve a feature because it is too slow.

We are still doing alot of work with new tools but old methods though, it will be interesting to see how far can we go if we forget about the old rules and embrace the chaos entirely.

Just like how there is "common misuse pattern of x language", there is also "common misuse of copilot/chatgpt4".

From my observation, those who are successful with code generation tools are using it as an assistant, they already know the language quite well, AI is there just to help, most of the code are boilerplate code or common patterns.

Those who complaint are usually using it to do more than just that, relying it to generate working piece of code for a particular function without knowledge of the language. Currently, we use StackOverflow for this purpose, when we asked question, we don't just say, "hey, code please" but we are trying to understand why and how things work instead. This knowledge will then help us to code contextually, which current AIs are incapable of. The plus side is that code generation is faster.

Also the point of the paper is not to prove that GPT-4 is unusable but that it can be further improve. They didn't just manually determine misuses but did it via an API checker that they designed. So, in the future, AIs are just going to be more reliable not less.

We are not at a point that AI is common enough to talk about misuse yet though, most don't even have access to CoPilot or ChatGPT 4.

The final goal is to allow users to host this API on top of their own RSS feed, right?

Imagine those who want nothing to do with ChatGPT, now has to subscribe to a service to tell whether something is AI generated (for e.g. social media paying to combat spam bot, etc.)

But I doubt it's ever going to reliable? Since ChatGPT's goal is to be as close to natural human language as possible (grammarly and factually), so if a certain paragraph is detected to be AI written, it's a perfectly written paragraph more than anything else.

Unless they invent some subset of English language that only AI knows.

Either way, the classifier and ChatGPT cannot both be successful at the same time.

I don't understand the need to wait for something other than a search box to draw on the front when I just wanted to search and launch something.

On top of that, there is no way to customise the search result or create aliases. If I installed something portable without writing to registry, I couldn't even find it. And this is coming from a company that is adding AI to their search engine soon.

It's just like dealing with many differnt large codebases that has multiple language, is managed by multiple different departments and teams.

The same thing happened in Big Tech. Bugs are usually not fixed until they become a critical issue, not because they can't be, the solution is either too simple and not worth it (allocating resource to it become negative return because it's not aligned with the companies goal or KPI, so any second you spent on it, is like you're doing it in your free time, no one in the company will appreciate the effort) OR it's too complicated and there's no easy way out without some party compromising.

In the end, a bug or something that could actually improve UX, is simply dismissed because how you felt is less important than the data and figures.

Oh, because it's free and cool, comes with free distribution too.

Google didn't just target her or the university, like she said the AIs are amoral and the company doesn't really care because they only care about profit (or maybe they couldn't care less because of the yottabyte of content published everyday?)

Just being too dramatic while she could actually learn the rules and use YouTube as a platform to promote her content, i.e.cutting down full length lectures into smaller bitsize fun info video and direct viewers to their own hosting platform, etc.

And ironically, she's directing people to her paid subscription. We all need a sustainable way to create content and host it. She deserves to be paid for her content but don't play the victim card.

And Google and other platform is not all innocent, they need to be transparent about content moderation, like if you remove someone's content, please let everyone know why (on the page instead of just channel not found) and how the decision was made (bot or manual reviewed).

If we look at the result, it's just like something that a person with feelings would do but what about the process? How did we "feel" something.

From an computer engineering perspective, it is quite successful, it can act like it has sentient based on a very narrow scope where it is trained.

But from other branch of science, it might look very different, acting like a chimpanzee doesn't make you one, you're biologically and neurologically different.

The major difference with Fresh is that it runs everything just-in-time when it is needed, hence doesn't require building no shipping anything by default to the client(but you can still ship some JS for client side interactivity).

The key here is no building (packing, bundling, transpiling). This don't just save time but actually removes the complexity as what you see is what you get. The only things that ships to users visiting your site is around 0-3kb (plus client side JS you decided to ship), not prebundled transpiled polyfilled prebuild 10mb JavaScript.

Since it is Server Side Rendering, the performance is based on design decision.

In the end, small wins become a curse, win big or go home and watch YouTube videos about productivity, on 3x.

The flip side is, no matter how the general public criticize or hate it, it works and at times, more profitable than most startups nowadays.

The game was delayed for more than one whole year as they try to fix things up, 110k is probably an optimized figure.

That say, the game is enjoyable better than most mobile rpg but brings nothing new to the table. I would prefer it to be a pay once and for expansion though.

Until something changes how the Internet works, the very moment we sent something across the Internet through a service, we no longer have control over the data. Pegasus is just the tip of an iceberg and with technology become closer to us, i.e. homepods, smart electronic appliances, it is just time until all the big brands are hiring hackers to spy on their customers so that they can produce better product (make more money).

Going forward, privacy is not supposed to be a personal preference like how platforms nowadays makes us click through different settings to opt out, it is supposed to be something we all collective have out of the box and we need to work together towards that goal.

There's use for the wild card, for instance if you need ad hoc query of data during development or testing.

If your table is not properly indexed however, will cause unnecessary select all query even if you didn't intend to.

Junior developer is bad for SQL performance but hey, everyone starts there, so there's nothing to be embarrassed about. Just code on!

Interactive flow charts should be the main selling point, as for usage, it is up to the user.

Also the pricing model, restriction on frames and layers would chase free individual away but they are those who plays a main roles in making something mainstream. I would recommend removing the usage restriction but adding collaborative restriction. A good example for this is how Google Sheet works.

Good luck, hoping to see it being used everywhere someday.

I would instead tap into blockchain technology. For instance, to generate blocks for each passing seconds/minutes which randomly ties your UID to a random user. A decryption will be provided to you in 1 years period, i.e. in 2021, you will receive a hash key that will help you decrypt your blocks in 2020. You will get the exact time now if you decrypt the block. That way, by the time you get the keys, the locks will already be deprecated, unless of course you time traveled.