You keep talking past people.

The feedback they're sharing is very simple. It's not super clear from your sales copy if my purchase gets me access to all updates forever, or if those are limited to the current major version. The way you're intending it to work is simple, yes, but your sales copy doesn't reflect that.

It seems like an easily solvable problem, tweak your sales copy to clarify, but instead you keep digging your heels. Fine, it's your company. I'm not a lawyer, but generally I'd be worried about making a bunch of sales if its not clear to my customers what exactly their buying. I don't get why you'd take such a chance when the fix is so simple, but again, it's your company.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39214461

Freeing up money is not actually that hard. Doing it in a constructive way is a lot more difficult. I could go in and completely defund roads, airports, social security, public schools, the courts, the military, and save a ton of money.

Then what. What's the big plan? What are we going to do with all this money that will give us a better ROI?

That money was paying for stuff. Some stuff runs smoothly we enough that we take it for granted. Is everything perfect? No, but I'd like to see a little more care when screwing around with important infrastructure and services.

This reminds me of people that join a legacy software project and start proposing that you do a completely rewrite of the system without really understanding why certain decisions were made. It's almost always a total disaster and then someone else needs to come up and clean up after them.

I don't mind AI generated content. Just don't try to pass it off as your own. Like, if it's really that harmless then why would someone object to identifying it as AI generated. The fact that not everyone does tells me they're trying to deceive. Some of us object to that, and frankly I don't understand why anyone would be ok with it.

The issue with Twitter and a lot of social media is that you don't often encounter opposing views that are nuanced, thoughtful and constructive, but rather hot takes, rants and memes. Even when those share your same worldview they can be tiring, but when they don't, they can drain your mental energy quickly.

Perhaps people do want to live in their own bubble, but I wouldn't say we can judge that based on Twitter just because of how toxic it can be.

The fact that LLMs currently do not really understand the answers they're giving you is a pretty significant limitation they have. It doesn't make them useless, but it means they're not as useful at a lot of tasks that people think they can handle. And that limitation is also fundamental to how LLMs work. Can that be overcome? Maybe. There's certainly a ton of money behind it and a lot of smart people are working on it. But is it guaranteed?

Perhaps I'm wrong and we already know that it's simply a matter of time. I'd love to read an technical explanation for why that is, but I mostly see people rolling their eyes at us mere mortals who don't see how this will obviously change everything as if we're too small minded to understand what's going on.

To be extra clear, I'm not saying LLMs won't be a technological innovation as seismic as the invention of the car. My confusion is why for some there doesn't seem to be room for doubt.

When I'm studying a new subject I need guidance rather than a fire-hose of links to resources, but that may just be me.

But the parent commenter dilutes the definition further. A project with 2024 lines of code in 2024 is just an amusing coincidence. There's no reason why you'd expect a project in 2024 to not have 2024 lines of code.

Isn't this one of the use cases for Airtable?

I'm also skeptical that making LLMs a free-for-all will necessarily result in society developing some sort of herd immunity to bullshit. Pointing to your example, the internet started out as a wild west, and I'd say the general public is still highly susceptible to misinformation.

I don't disagree on the dangers of having a relatively small number of leaders at for-profit companies deciding what information we have access to. But I don't think the biggest issue we're facing is someone going to the ChatGPT website and assuming everything it spits out is perfect information.

Not to say I don't have some level of excitement about the tech, but I don't think it's unwarranted pessimism to look at this stuff and worry about it's darker implications.