What I wonder is beyond "using" AI, is what value the companies are actually seeing. Revenue growth at both OpenAI and Anthropic are increasing rapidly at the moment, but it's not clear if individual companies are really growing their useage, or if it is everyone starting to try it out.

Personally, I have used it sparingly at work, as the lack of memory seems to make it quite difficult to use for most of my coding tasks. I see other people spending hours or even days trying to craft sub-agents and prompts, but not delivering much, if any, output above average. Any output that looks correct, but really isn't cause a number of headaches.

For the VC's, one issue is constant increase in compute. Currently it looks to me like every new release is only slightly better, but the compute and training costs increase at the same rate. The AI companies need the end users to need their product so much they can significantly increase the price to the end users. I think this is what they want to see in "adoption", such a high demand that they can see the future of increasing prices.

For a while Intel's process knowledge was supposed to be better, even if the design was less efficient, but that turned out to be a mirage around 10nm or so. Intel now without a process advantage is probably never going to regain it's monopoly, and so far hasn't really transformed itself to do anything other than build those high-margin chips.

Once upon a time, I wanted to use one of the chips from a company they bought in networking, but Intel's model is to make the chip and let other companies make a product to take it to market. Intel doesn't want to make a market, just sell into it. You can see that with their attempt at TV where they stopped when they didn't want to spend money on content. So the chip I was interested in didn't get much R&D or a product and it more or less disappeared, another wasted investment.

I'd personally find someone shadowing me and asking questions super annoying.

I don't think this would work with all teams, the takeaway I got from the article is about artificial metrics.

The current generation of battery tech is just a little heavier than would be competitive to ICE on weight. Gasoline holds a lot more energy than a battery can, but the engine is heavier. If/when battery density is able to double (and this solid state tech is 2x-3x current battery, so it would be a game-changer), you would have very similar car weights. This seems to be one of the reasons the big trucks are first, adding a thousand pounds to a 6000 lb. truck isn't as bad as adding that to a car half the weight. I expect we will eventually see vehicles that weight less than the ICE counterpart that get a reasonable range, but hard to say when battery tech advances that much.

Model Y RWD weighs 4065 pounds, but pretty sure my Tundra is a lot less safe for pedestrians, as it sits higher and weight about 1800 pounds more without fuel.

Yeah, smaller cars are better for pedestrian safety, but North American drivers in general want bigger cars. Ford stopped making passenger cars for NA, even. Although you could argue some of their small 'SUV's are really hatchbacks at this point.

Not sure how you get people to want to buy smaller cars other than taxes.

But yeah, it is pretty inconvenient for a lot of people at the moment, I have a home charger in my garage, but traveling to a city is more challenging. Range has been no problem, super chargers are fast, but then you have to find a charger in a garage or something where it usually charges money to park and if it's not a Tesla charger usually doesn't charge very fast, it gets expensive quickly. Reminder we are constantly moving in the 'better EV support' direction, whereas I have seen a gas station removed recently and a neighborhood protest about building a new one.

On the other hand, I have now stayed at hotels where the valet tops off the car, so I didn't even have to stop to charge at all on trips < max range.

You can already buy lifepo4 cells, I've thought about making a boat, but time and money etc.

But this is about the masses, the Toyota Camry sells well, and I'm sure those same people will eat up the Toyota Camry EV when it comes out.

Not that I'm telling you to buy an EV, but EV's are like 6% of (new)sales this year iirc, I expect next year is 7-8%, then 9-11%? After 10% of sales and all the growth is in EVs I expect the market to change quickly, like gas car sales to just fall off a cliff as legacy automakers really start to scramble. Well, at least in the US, seems China has a much higher EV share.

Anyways, yeah, probably somewhere in the 4-7 year range from now, there will be some good options in cheaper, used EVs for people, and probably more than just the Bolt that has decent range at low end new pricing.

Until their a substantial used inventory and more deliveries, sure, EVs are not attractive to the people you refer to. At least in the US.

I've lived across from nightly rentals at a resort, I expected it, so no complaints to the late night partying etc. But my current neighborhood I have no expectation the house next door is going to suddenly start hosting huge gatherings every weekend, and I expect it to stay that way.

I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.

Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be succesful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).

But sure, why do you not support DEI? You have a better solution that is somehow based on 'qualifications' that isn't biased?

I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them. I have also observed a manager who's religion made women subservient, and no woman he ever managed was promoted. Bias or just probability? One of those women is now a very successful director of engineering. (She left his team and was promoted elsewhere)

While I can't speak to all DEI programs, the intent at most places I've been is to interview a wider range of people. That might show slight favor to interviewing, but the bar for hiring does not change. This is not just a problem in tech, the relatively recent NFL head coach issue of teams deciding to hire a coach and then interviewing a black coach after that "for compliance" with no intent of actually considering them is a huge problem.

If you work at a place that truly only hires people to check a box and doesn't care about that person's success or the impact around them, sure, move on.

I've worked with a very small handful of black people over my career, several indians, a fair number of asians and a few hispanics.

The demographics in my experience were all pretty abyssmal, without some sort of policy in place, the actual bias that ends up hiring only other white males was never going to end. I would say it's probably still strong, as a recent place I worked was incredibly white and male.

My understanding is that hiring becomes much more fair if you are able to remove all racial/sexual details from a hiring process (at least, if resumes are shown without those details you get expected results, but with those details a bias appears).

That said, I think a lot of these people are upset by DEI precisely because it is resulting in more diversity. If you are biased against the people who DEI helps get hired, you are obviously going to think they are poor hires, because you always thought "those people" tend to be poor hires. Assuming OP is actually a black man, I think he needs to realize that many, if not most, people who make assumptions about him based on DEI or the like, are always looking for an excuse for their own biases.