For example, just the other day I fat fingered the screen and chose the wrong currency.

Being backed by lots of VC cash and Bytedance's revenues in China is a key factor in getting TikTok established overseas.

You can always leave the core logic for your to work on and have the AI handle all the bits that you don't like to do. This is what we do for modelling for example, AI helps with the interface and data backends, the core modelling logic is hand-crafted.

Also, what makes you think that NLP would solve the problem you're describing? Only LLMs has proven that it could fully understand and process the queries in the way you're describing, hence why I brought that up. However it is expensive computationally, and only recently was it even technically possible to do.

This is such a flippant and facile response.

Google isn't a advertising company, it is a tech company that gets the majority of its revenue via selling advertising. This can change, and also likely to change in the next decade or so.

The reason things are is that nobody was willing to pay for search - it's a product with a very low incremental cost. The market dictated this operating model, and nobody has been able to upend this model so far, not even OAI. The numbers just don't work out. Do you think OAI can continue to subsidise free ChatGPT queries with paid ChatGPT Plus subscriptions? Almost certainly not.

This is also the type of search that Google makes no money from.

The money is in searching for up-to-date relevant product information, where Google is the undisputed leader.

>Search engines, especially with the resources of Google, could have developed at least basically functional natural language search decades ago

Google is one of the major AI research outfits, and arguably the only one that continues to deliver consistently over the last 2 decades. Statistical Machine Translation/Google Translate, Adwords Quality Score, TensorFlow, AlphaGo, Attention is all you need (Transformers), AlphaFold all Google innovations.

You can't really blame the prevalence of SEO slop on Google. It's not the lack of want of trying, it is hard technically (see how long it took to develop modern AI capabilities), expensive computationally (as we can see with the unsustainable cost of test-time search in ChatGPT) and in terms of user-experience.

>Google is certainly well on their way to becoming another Yahoo

Really, it isn't. Google is in the unique position of being the closest technology company to achieving full vertical integration of their value chain, from silicon to software to data to end-users. They are also at the forefront of frontier AI, including productising the research output. I don't really get the Google hate on HN, apart from maybe the YC/sama bias.

I mean I like Claude Code too, but there is enough room for more than one CLI agentic coding framework (not Codex though, cuz that sucks j/k).

The skills in leadership don't start developing when you become a 'manager' at work, it starts developing around the time you lose your baby teeth, maybe even before. From personal experience, there is little correlation between the amount of time spent in 'management' and how much one understands leadership.

This is fine, and expected of senior management.

> I've found that the more clueless they are the better (just don't point that out).

This is toxic. Management at the senior level of these organisations has been completely detached from the activities on the ground.

A healthy functional organisation should have senior managers that understand the complete stack of layers, but especially at the level where the value is being generated they need to fully understand.

You are making several jumps in logic to get from A -> B.

Japan has an education system which teaches the importance of certain values, patience and self-discipline among them.

Here is the short-film "Instruments of a Beating Heart" currently on the Oscars shortlist about this very point -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRW0auOiqm4

This is a strategic play, not a revenue play.