Corey laid out this line of thinking on a July 1 episode of the Galaxy Brain podcast. It was a good listen and I generally think he has some interesting points, but I also can't help but think that he does himself a disservice by having such a consistently negative bias toward AI and tech in general.
Most of the time he comes off as an objective thinker, but those are really discounted by moments where his own dogma leads him down a path of making weakly supported points that seem like they come more from a place of anger.
What a sad path to see such a bright star going down. I guess it’s not a huge surprise, but it really does paint a bleak picture of technology to see how narrow the range of likely outcomes is. Doesn’t matter if you built the foundation for the future and cured cancer - the most likely outcome is being back to optimizing for engagement and revenue.
> "To Figma: I can see a world where this post does numbers in the Figma internal Slack. If that’s the case and you’re reading this from Figma: this wouldn’t have happened if you hired me last year when I was interviewing. Your loss, big dawg."
What a counterproductive way to end an otherwise good set of points. Gives the appearance of bitterness and a desire for vengeance.
From time to time I've tried using ChatGPT for financial modeling, and I have to say my experiences don't inspire much confidence.
Just this past week I used it to generate a simple model of a few different scenarios related to an investment property I own.
The first problem I ran into is that it was unable to output a downloadable XLS file. Not a huge deal - it suggested generating CSV tables I could copy/paste into a spreadsheet. The outputs it gave me included commas in a handful of numbers over 1,000 (but not all of them!) which of course shifted cells around when brought into Google Sheets. We pivoted our approach to TSV and solved this problem. Big deal? No. Seemingly basic oversight? Absolutely.
This is where the real fun began. Once I started to scrutinize and understand the model it built, I found incorrect references buried all over the place, some of which would have been extremely hard to spot. Here's my actual exchange with ChatGPT:
- - - - - - - - - -
> Can you check the reference in cell F3? It looks like it's calling back to the wrong cell on the inputs tab. Are there similarly incorrect references elsewhere?
> Yes, F3 is incorrect, and there are multiple other incorrect references elsewhere: (It listed about 30 bulleted incorrect references)
Bottom line -
- Many formulas point to the wrong Inputs row because of the blank lines
- The Sell + Condo section also has a structural design problem, not just bad references.
The cleanest fix is for me to regenerate the entire AnnualModel TSV with:
- all references corrected
- all 15 years included
- the condo scenario modeled properly with a separate housing asset column
- - - - - - - - - -
This was me asking about the exact output I had just received (not something I had made any changes to or reworked.)
There are plenty of domains where I have enough faith and error tolerance to use ChatGPT all day, but this just sends a chill down my spine. How many users are really going to proof every single formula? And if I need to scrutinize to that level of detail, what's the point in the first place?
All this is is evidence that Jack Dorsey had no idea what half the employees at Block were doing before he decided to do layoffs. May he know no peace, wherever he goes.
...but many people in positions where they can start a war or cause some other highly visible event of any sort probably will start turning to Polymarket to make money in the course of their work
As a technology company scales up, making great software becomes one of a hundred things the company needs to do right in order to survive and grow. Doesn’t mean it isn’t absolutely essential, but so is having a strong GTM machine, finance competency, operational rigor, HR, and a long list of other essential functions.
It’s only the tech industry where the voice and ego of small companies hold outsized share of voice and love to claim the contrary.
There's so much content and so many opinions on "meetings" that are polarized and come from a very narrow viewpoint. This particular POV seems reasonably critical of meetings but also recognizing that they are often warranted and can be carried out effectively.
I was happy to see "rallying the troops" as an acceptable reason to have a big meeting, because in my opinion it can be a good reason for a big meeting to exist (even though I'm sure many people disagree.)
The willingness to think you understand and can have an informed opinion on something neither you nor I nor a twentysomething engineer from Tesla know anything about is just as tiresome.
I’m only arguing that there are complex reasons why some of these programs exist and it requires experience and perspective to uncover that and make informed decisions.
I’m ok with age being used as a partial proxy for experience when we’re talking about highly specialized roles with massive implications like the ones that DOGE staffers were dropped into.
I think a lot of them actually do. It's easy to see TikTok users as mindless consumers, but the more you consume the more you develop a taste for unique content. Over the past few years the content that seems to truly do well at a global scale very often has markers of authenticity. Once something becomes easy to produce it becomes commonplace and you become sick of it quickly.
I could see Sora having a significant negative impact on short form video products like TikTok if they don’t quickly and accurately find a way to categorize its use. A steady stream of AI generated video content hurts the value prop of short form video in more than one way… It quickly desensitizes you and takes the surprise out that drives consumption of a lot of content. It also of course leaves you feeling like you can’t trust anything you see.
Of course, everyone comes from their own particular point of view and/or bias.
I'm a host. The POV I see this from is that of someone who pays close attention to the market and the changing perception of short term rentals. I've read far enough beyond the headlines to know that these accusations are very often not what they seem, and that this narrative is being blown way out of proportion considering how infrequently it actually happens.
The POV a sub-segment of NYT readers see this from is one of being righteous about short-term rentals (in theory at least.)
The POV of writers and editors at NYT is to respond to their readers' preferences.
As an Airbnb host I can just as quickly tell you stories of exploitative guests who are chronic abusers of the system, attempting to get refunds by threatening narratives like this that they know have the potential to get sympathy and traction with Airbnb or on social media. In almost all of these cases it ends up being one persons' word vs. another. An accusation is far from proof, but hosts most often stand to lose.
It definitely depends on the nature of your work, but the notion of having a channel I need to check hourly makes me ill. If I’m needed I should get a notification, and if I’m involved in an active discussion, I’m there. Otherwise I’ll catch up on a daily basis.
Most of the time he comes off as an objective thinker, but those are really discounted by moments where his own dogma leads him down a path of making weakly supported points that seem like they come more from a place of anger.