That's a decent article. My only issue is it seems heavily biased at the end, or at least he seems to misunderstand what the 'A.I. types in Silicon Valley' are doing.
> Computers should adapt to people. Asking people to make themselves more legible to software — to turn themselves into a database — is a doomed idea.
I've been in software a long time, and I do sort of see this trend, but I think it's because these are tools that build other tools. The interface has always been a 'best I can do for now' thing, with the focus on doing things that are useful. Computers were just calculators in the beginning, which led to more complex calculators, instruction sets, programming languages, operating systems, GUIs, interconnectivity, etc.
What people are doing today is experimenting, like they always have. They're putting their experiments out there so that others can use them and build on them. Some will use those tools to build other tools, and some won't. But over time, the experiments that work will get distilled and turn into real products that people who 'do not yearn for automation' will still want to use, so it seems like the value is there.
I guess the real question is whether they will create value that offsets the near-term costs, because I don't think the billions in investments are sustainable, and I'm not convinced the centralized data center paradigm is the right way.
They're talking about before it's configured by the user. It defaults to 'free' models so that the user can ask a question immediately on startup. Once you configure a provider, the default models aren't used.
> We can no longer design for ourselves, and we rely heavily on community feedback to co-design the right experience. We cannot build the right things without that feedback.
How can that be true, when you're deliberately and repeatedly telling devs (the community you claim to listen to) that you know better than they do? They're telling you exactly what they want, and you're telling them, "Nah." That isn't listening. You understand that, right?
There's a reason for people to hate it... it's a tool used for something similar to genocide, only instead of killing the individuals (like they did in the past) it is used to reduce the population out of existence over time. To get benefits as a tribal member, you need to have a blood quantum over a certain amount. That means native populations are guaranteed to shrink because there are fewer and fewer 'full bloods'.
It's also incredibly racist, when you get down to it. Does a white person need to be able to trace their lineage to claim they are white, or any other race, for that matter?
When you talk to Cherokee people, most of them are very clear that if you are part of the Cherokee culture, you're Cherokee. Throughout history, they have 'adopted' people of other races into their tribes, and those people married and had children. If an adopted white man married and adopted white woman, their children would be considered full blood, regardless of their skin color. So from a Cherokee perspective (and I assume any tribes that behaved similarly) the measure of a Cherokee is whether they are a part of the Cherokee culture, rather than what their genealogy shows.
> Computers should adapt to people. Asking people to make themselves more legible to software — to turn themselves into a database — is a doomed idea.
I've been in software a long time, and I do sort of see this trend, but I think it's because these are tools that build other tools. The interface has always been a 'best I can do for now' thing, with the focus on doing things that are useful. Computers were just calculators in the beginning, which led to more complex calculators, instruction sets, programming languages, operating systems, GUIs, interconnectivity, etc.
What people are doing today is experimenting, like they always have. They're putting their experiments out there so that others can use them and build on them. Some will use those tools to build other tools, and some won't. But over time, the experiments that work will get distilled and turn into real products that people who 'do not yearn for automation' will still want to use, so it seems like the value is there.
I guess the real question is whether they will create value that offsets the near-term costs, because I don't think the billions in investments are sustainable, and I'm not convinced the centralized data center paradigm is the right way.