The author clearly explains his process in detail, explaining the pitfalls. Not sure why you’d make a dig like this.
There are some useful insights in the article
This paper feels a bit biased in that it is trying to prove a point versus report on results objectively. But if you look at the results of study 3, doesn’t it suggest that there are ai models that can improve how people handle interpersonal conflict?! Why isn’t that discussed more?
That’s simply not true, governments help billions of people in many ways, especially people with disabilities, children (ie labor protections), women, etc. You are completely disingenuous to say otherwise. Billionaires are harming many people through eroding the institutions that protect the average people (rulings like citizens united, trumps election, etc). You don’t seem like a person with a real perspective to me.
You are basically an anarchist then. There are examples of good governance in the world, where the rule of law hasn’t been eroded by the people you are set on protecting. The problem with billionaires is more about the problem of power in the hands of a few greedy people who change the balance of power in their favor.
Something needs to be done about the historic inequality in this country. It will undue all the “innovation” (ie selling ads and addicting people to the internet) that these tech billionaires have contributed.
That is where I’m shocked being in a position of raising for a startup myself, what was in their pitch deck/data room that convinced them of this valuation? Or is it due to the founders reputation and not the substance?
So pointing out that the dude works for a morally corrupt billionaire gets you downvotes… we’ve got a draw the line somewhere folks. Working for the wealthiest person in the world who lacks an moral framework is morally wrong. You should be reminded of this op and hope you reflect on your complicity.
The sheer ignorance . To form such an opinion, with such confidence and literally the only grounding is a few women he/she has dated. We are living in an idiocracy.
Unfortunately, Technological solutions are more politically feasible than attempting to reduce via restrictions and regulations that require intense global coordination that does not exist.
I do think Manus had a better approach than some of the competitors of the space, allowing for far more agentic flows (ie manus would run its own code, debug, write and run tests, etc). Lovable or v0 by contrast are quite primitive. Very unfortunate that they are a part of meta now, where mark will likely micromanage and destroy the core value of the product.
If this is the new way code is written then they are arguably learning how to code. Jury is still out though, but I think you are being a bit dismissive.