LLMs just make it possible to get a minimum-viable-clone very quickly (whether it is as good as a traditional open-source re-implementation, is a different matter).

The only software that I am happy to pay for is: Mathematica, and a handful of video games.

A big problem with patents is that they are designed to deprive other people of the right to practice an idea. Even if all software was automatically patented (somehow), you almost certainly would not be able to afford to defend your patents. And even if patent-defense-costs became socialized, you would still have to ensure that you are practicing fewer _external_ patents than _internal_ patents (otherwise, your royalty costs will exceed your royalty profits).

Edison industrialized the creation of patents (e.g. he would hire thousands of bright young graduates, and have them invent things, and then patent them in his own name). I once read a book that said Thomas Edison was the "greatest inventor" because he held thousands of patents. The reality is that he invented a tiny fraction of those patents, and he merely put his name on the work of other people.

My point is, if the auto-software-patent scenario becomes true, then wealthy people/organizations/oligopolies will create a patent-factory, made of either people, LLMs, or (more likely) both.

In a sense, OpenAI is already doing this for mathematical theorems (they use both LLMs _and_ a team of world-class mathematicians, much like Edison did in his day).

When I was growing up, patents were explained to us (children) as a means to protect the brilliant, solitary, but underfunded inventor -- a way to even the playing field. This has not been true for the entirety of my lifetime (36 years now), and has probably been untrue for the last century, at least.

The laws are not there to protect you and your interests, but rather they are there to protect the interests of the oligopolists (any protections you receive are _downstream_ of that).

If you want protections, you need to be sitting on top of a giant money-faucet. If you are already sitting on the money-faucet, then you probably don't strictly _need_ the protections.

Making money off of software has been a disappointing business for a while now (e.g. when I started out in the industry, the dominant business model was: turn a free Unix tool into a SaaS, and charge the innocent computer-user extortionary rents, or feed them ads, or both). The current business model is: sell plagiarism as a service.

The only reason that people talk about "moats" is because rent and food and healthcare are not free. The LLM companies are in the business of draining every moat they can find, and use the water to fill their own moat. Relying on the law to protect your moat for you is a fantasy, because every successful company finds a way to avoid or externalize the consequences of breaking the law.

Furthermore, the laws get changed whenever they become inconvenient. For example, the draft-age-limit was 35. When the Iran War started, I was relieved that I would become undraftable in less than a year. But a few months ago, they raised the limit to 42.

My rhetorical question to you (plural) is: if the establishment can change the rules, whenever they deem them inconvenient, why should we not _break_ the rules, whenever _we_ deem them inconvenient?

You could be a hero. A legend. The internet might even write poems and sing songs about you.

In fact, we had a call with some people who worked at GCP, and I (naively, and excitedly) mentioned that our design is simple/minimal and cloud-portable. A miasma of awkwardness fell upon the conversation, and I realized that the reason that the GCP people were so keen to speak to us, was that they were anticipating, that once we used up the credits, that they would then get regular recurring revenue from the company.

Most cloud companies are in the business of locking you in via very convenient APIs, that would be costly to migrate off of, if you did not abstract them away to begin with (naturally, the egress costs cannot be abstracted away, but those were not much of a problem in our case, because our output-data was very small compared to the input-data).

There is an expression in my native language: he who lacks virtue in the head, has virtue in the legs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

The LLM companies, like most SV companies, are just betting on dimness, laziness, and impulsiveness. Not so different from tobacco and alcohol companies.

It is unclear to me just what percentage of tech-companies, are in the business of adding extra steps to an illegal process, of turning signal into noise. For example, the vapes made by Juul are a kind of hack around public health laws. The Amazon marketplace shields merchants who sell counterfeit goods. Uber and Lyft bypassed the local laws that applied to taxi services and the medallion system. Airbnb did something similar with the laws governing hotels, and delineating who owns and who rents.

It is a special kind of disappointment, to be someone who loves technology, and to have to work in the technology industry -- because it appears to be run by people who hate everything that is not money.

They object to the systematized devaluing of their work. They object to becoming a class of invisible laborers (who only become visible when there is need to blame someone).

Note that society is more about justice than it is about philosophy or logic. Whether you believe that IP makes logical sense or not, is not terribly relevant through the lens of justice. To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not (despite having purer intentions than either -- despite being a genuine utilitarian, instead of an aspiring oligarch _pretending_ to be one), would be the height of injustice.

It would be a grotesque and cruel insult to all the people who remember Swartz, and share his values and optimism about the internet and computers.

[0]: Because, in effect, we are decreasing the size of the search-space. Every programming-language project is basically a set of bets, that the design choices will decrease the size of the search space for the users of that language (most Unix commands fit this pattern, as do most well designed APIs). Mathematics is similar, in that the notation is specialized and sparse (even the named constants and variables have symbolic names, instead of meaningful names). Most system dynamics models could have the names of entities replaced with id-numbers, and they would continue to function. The whole point of (for example) a library is to give a tiny parameterized notation/language, that the user can use to express a solution to their problem, in terms of the problem domain itself. This decreasing of the search-space, is an act of compression. I have to say, I am a little confused by your reply, because it has the tone of a disagreement, but it does not really disagree with anything that I have written. Also, I have given various examples to support my analogies, but you have offered zero examples, and I suspect that there would be less confusion (on my part) if you did.

In fact, both Cyc and the "AI" Labs have the _same basic thesis_: Intelligence is, primarily, a data entry problem. They just disagree about what kinds of heuristics should be run over that data (logic-programs, neural-nets).

Whenever I read about someone using LLMs to write code, it _very closely_ resembles how Lenat was using Eurisko/Cyc to solve problems: they let the system run continuously, and they "nudge" it in "interesting" directions, "when it gets stuck", or "runs out of steam". (Quotes indicate their phrasing, not mine)

Even Lee Spector noticed something analogous with his genetic programming system. When he tried to get it to discover optimal data structures (or maybe it was sorting algorithms, I forget), the system would quickly "run out of steam", without a solution. But when they added new verbs/opcodes to the system, that were a better fit for that domain (e.g. index-based memory loads + stores), it converged on a solution very quickly (even for GP, domain specific languages keep delivering unreasonable wins). You will note that this rhymes with the "micro-theories" of Cyc, which in turn rhyme with the SLMs of the AI labs.

In my personal experience, most of the "silver bullets" do not work (obviously), but some of them do nudge you towards being a better programmer (by refining your intuition about the problem specifically, and computers more generally).

EDIT: just remembered something. LLMs tend to produce larger and larger programs over time, and most people (IIRC) interpret this as a kind of entropy. This happens to rhyme with a similarly observed behavior in GP. Most genetic programs that do not have a fitness function that rewards smaller size, tend to grow in an unbounded way. The reason for this, is that most of the code/genes are useless, and random mutations do not lobotomize the program under evolution. I suspect that the coding LLMs tend to grow their code for similar reasons.

[0]: I suspect that, this was mostly a triumph of enormous amounts of hardware, more than the actual LLM technology. I further suspect that a traditional GP approach, on the same quantity of hardware, could have gotten there faster (if not better as well).

I heard (literally with my ears, during a pseudo-dinner-thing, so this may be apocryphal, so you may have to do some spelunking through sources) that Microsoft "bought" the source code of some browser-project, for a percentage of the revenues that come from Internet Explorer. The catch was that IE was bundled with Windows for free, so a percentage of zero is zero.

A definite fact, is that when Netscape folded, the industry -- and the investors that got burned by the rapaciousness of Microsoft -- finally got in-sync enough to lobby and agitate for the antitrust lawsuit that almost broke Microsoft up. A consequence of that lawsuit is that quasi-monopolies like Meta, Google, etc, started buying promising startups instead of burying them.

I am not sure that a world where Nvidia just out-spends Hugging Face, via its quasi-monopoly-revenues, is better than the one we are currently in.

If I have to choose between two evils, I'd obviously choose the lesser one. But maybe we can do even better, and choose the absence of evil?

Maybe companies should have "weight-classes" the same way that most sports have those, to match opponents. (After all, despite both being remarkable sportists, Koga cannot defeat Ogawa, who is a few weight-classes heavier). Something like this is how France protects (or tries to) its own small business owners (I am told, they still have many small independent bookstores, despite competition from Amazon, and chain-bookstores before that).

The venture-capital does _somewhat_ balance the scales, but not by much, and it encourages the pursuit of _exits_ instead of _excellence_ (not shaming anyone for taking an exit, I am just saying that the alternative is systematically penalized -- only the very lucky or very protected can pursue excellence).

Another friend, worked at a company, that got a new manager (I think as a result of a merger), and that manager halted all work on "yak shaving" projects. These "yak shaving" projects were things like logging, and debugging, and some kind of integrity-verification. When asked why they were being halted, the new manager said: "none of our customers asked for any of these things". When told that these things enable the team to produce a better product for the customers, the manager (I am told) looked at them with confusion and suspicion. Those projects were never improved since, and the product stopped improving as well. I am not sure if it affected their business (the pandemic was much more distortive).

What you call "business logic", is not even logic, and it has little to do with business. It is what Feynman called a "cargo cult". The obvious name for it is "cargo cult business management/logic".

It truly is embarrassing and shameful that after decades of idiotic decisions, it took a _trillion_[1] dollars of investment into a chat-bot technology, to finally crack open _one_[2] door to slightly less idiotic decisions, while opening dozens of new doors to decisions of an unknowable character.

Most companies (and, consequently, their engineering organizations) are simply _cosplaying_ as the things they are supposed to be.

I do not see how an AI assistant (or any kind of assistant or consultant) can save these fools from themselves. The only logical explanation is that most software companies are cursed -- you would have much better luck engaging a witch-doctor.

[0]: Nobody else knew C or C++ either. The fact is, that nobody cared. In fact, even Go would have been a better choice than raw Python, but nobody cared. Even Common Lisp (which is at least as abstract as Python, and has native execution speeds (GC and runtime type-checking can be turned off for compute-heavy workloads that mutate data in-place)), is a better choice, and yet, an _abundance_ of obviously superior options (all implemented and maintained by obviously superior engineers) was not enough to prevent the organization from choosing an inferior one, and using it stupidly (without a fast native-code component).

[1]: I see estimates from hundreds of billions to a trillion, depending on how you count it.

[2]: The performance door, if Luu is correct.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372176

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

[0]: There were 10 distinct languages, making up 98% of all languages in the empire. My understanding is that most citizens had to learn German, even though only 20% of the population spoke German as a mother tongue. Also a few different language branches (Germanic, Ugric, Slavic, Romance), with one of those branches (Ugric) not being Indo-European at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_and_religious_compositi...

While I practically never agree with the guy, Thiel did say that "every startup is a conspiracy". Which is just another way of saying that every business is a conspiracy. The Oxide "conspiracy"[1] is to divert a chunk of the enormous economic surplus that is being captured by Amazon (and Broadcom, and others), and in the process, put some meaningful amount of that surplus in the pocket of the customer (otherwise, there is no reason to switch).

This is an incredibly ambitious goal, that cannot be achieved without upfront capital. Part of it is certainly hardware (which is getting more expensive, rapidly, and so it might make sense to buy years-worth of it), but another part is the _switching cost_ (which the _challenger/conspirator_ usually has to cover for the customer). That cost can easily be measured in the millions of dollars (Dropbox, famously, migrated off of AWS, via a client-side reupload, because moving the data from AWS to their own DCs was prohibitively expensive[2]).

Also, WW3 is slowly unfolding. The only reason energy prices are not in "brownout territory" is because (IIUC) the world's largest oil consumer is importing half as much oil from the mid-east as it used to. A few of the things that I buy, have _not_ gotten more expensive in euros, but they have gotten more expensive in dollars (by around 5% last I checked). If you need to use dollars to stockpile input-goods, now is the best time to do that, if you anticipate that the dollar will lose value over the next year.

A similar logic applies to selling a company. Amazon, in 2016, was already on the path to _massively_ improving the performance of its VMs and cloud services (via using more SSDs, building custom hardware, etc), and bare-metal performance was one of the Joyent selling points. With the resources of a company like Samsung, Joyent could also (potentially) use faster hardware, etc.

However, even under the aegis of Samsung, some (let's call them) _political asymmetries_ could not be avoided. I cannot talk about _internal_ asymmetries, but _external_ ones are already public knowledge. In particular, in 2017 or 2018, spectre and meltdown CPU-exploits hit the industry. All the major cloud providers had advance knowledge of this (and were able to mitigate via KPTI), except for Joyent (who had to work with the OpenBSD community for a few months to fix this). In those few months, if customers wanted to be completely safe, they would have had to move their instances to a different cloud. It is unclear (to me, because I am an engineer and not an accountant or account manager) if Joyent could have survived that without being part of Samsung.

And by the way, this would not have been as urgent of a problem, if Joyent was selling physical machines (like Oxide is, right now), instead of renting them out to multiple tenants. Imagine if an adversary could just spin up a VM right next to yours on the same exact machine. Even without spectre and meltdown, they could probably impact the performance and latency of your VMs indirectly, if they were willing to spend enough money. I once did this by accident (because I, foolishly, overestimated Google) on GCP, via their lambda-equivalent, and found out when they told us that those workloads were moved to a different DC. So if this is a problem for _Google_, it's a problem for everyone.

For at least the last decade, HN has consistently (but, thankfully, not exclusively) been attacking Joyent (and now Oxide), for various perceived misbehaviors[3], while frequently letting much less ambitious projects off the hook. Engineering any meaningfully new or disruptive technology is a very challenging marathon, and doing so, in business circumstances (which can only be characterized as: circumstances where the other runners are armed and always out to get you, while sometimes, the universe itself decides to send a few lightning bolts and storms in your direction) is almost impossible, without either (1) a monopoly, like MSFT and GOOG and AMZN enjoy, or (2) massive amounts of investment-cash that can only come from a very smart and very keen sugar daddy[4].

[0]: I can't recall who said this, but someone at the time said, they were tired of buying Bezos a BMW every month (via their AWS bill). Sometimes, it wasn't even an issue with the size of the bill: Amazon competes with many, many companies out there.

[1]: Based on various public statements. So basically, the Joyent conspiracy, but this time on-prem (so maybe Joyent + Fishworks = Oxide), and with fewer faulty drives (IIRC, there was a batch of drives, worth a huge amount of money, that had bad firmware, which caused their throughput to drop sporadically -- the exact details escape me, but you can see why there is a distrust of firmware written by others (also worth noting, is that this HDD vendor did not even offer to replace the faulty drives, but instead offered a marginal discount on the next order)).

[2]: Not because of any real, physical cost, but because Amazon bills you for every byte that leaves their datacenter (but not for any byte that enters).

[3]: I think it started when Joyent did not honor the "lifetime storage" promise that it made to its customers from the 2000s.

[4]: If anyone knows any wealthy heiresses that are looking to get married (or for a concubine), in exchange for financing my ambition to build an invention that is simultaneously (1) the last invention humanity will ever need, and (2) the invention that humanity needs most urgently, please hit me up. I have a sense of humor and am hung AF.

The Haiku project (an OS based on BeOS), is a remarkable achievement. It is sad that we may never see such things again, because people want their achievements to mean something, and, increasingly, intellectual achievements are becoming (unjustly and misleadingly) trivialized by the LLM hype machine.

It feels like humanity is deliberately making itself colorblind.

[0]: For example, you can create pretty decent art on the wacom tablets, but that is such a niche use case. There are probably other use cases that are unrealized, because it might distract the precious users from their push notifications and doom-scrolling.

[1]: Which for the most part is _reactive_. It used to be that companies would invest in industrial design (or visual design) to make an aesthetically appealing product. The problem, is that this is very expensive, and difficult to repeat, because there is not exactly a science of aesthetics (nothing beyond philosophy of phenomenology and also some eastern philosophies). And so, companies use the only strategy that can scale: rage-bait, doomerism, etc. Somehow, I do not think that the executives and shareholders of these companies consume the same information diet (how many cigarette company shareholders and executives are chain smokers?). Maybe alignment requires that the people who sell a product are legally required to integrate it into their lifestyle (I wonder how many sex-toy-company executives and shareholders would abandon ship).