I think there may be more to overcomplicated brews than lifestyle or status. It's a desire to get technical in a world where so much of life has been automated away from the consumer's view or ability to affect it. Coffee is a way to tinker with something in the same way previous generations tinkered with their cars or radios or whatever. It's an outlet for creativity and technical skill building for those that engage in brewing.
Coffee shops will sell rituals, status, prestige, sophistication or the appearance thereof. Same as every other business. But that's not to say the product can't be superior - it can. It also doesn't say that every product that makes use of those marketing techniques is superior; but even if it isn't, if the customer walks away happy, they must've done something right, right?
Don't we do the same with the technology we're working on? How often is it truly better beyond any critique? People were getting stuff done even before our products were around with less fuss and a different set of problems. We do what we do to end up busy with stuff so we can do what we do all over again, don't we? I digress.
It does get tiresome when everyone is trying to sell you an experience and it becomes disappointing when the selling of experiences becomes so commoditized, the thing being sold loses its credibility as something special on account of being sold as such. Is it a crisis of authenticity?
To each, their own. I used to tinker with espresso based drinks, but I'm mostly over it. I've learned to discern (some) better coffee beans from others, but I mostly don't drink that - I can't justify paying that much for a coffee I brew myself and that I may botch out of being in a hurry. It's also a distraction that takes time I don't have anymore. But it was fun to explore for a while and I now own a very fancy looking espresso machine, grinder and all sorts of acccessories.
I'm working on a tool to generate and host full stack web apps from prompts (just like everyone else). I'm loving it. Using llms to do as much of my coding as possible, so in a way eating my own dog food, although it's a more developer-driven effort than what the end product will be.
Strange thing is, the most time consuming part of getting this ready for a user facing launch is not the code generating, but all the scaffolding/queues/storage to run it.
Looks good, might give it a try. I was looking for something similar to provide a unified interface for gpt and claude and eventually hacked something together myself, as none of the solutions I found could deal with structured output properly across both vendors.
I miss the 00s internet. I miss IRC and geeking out for the sake of it. Maybe i'm just missing my younger years, but I think there was a distinct feeling back then, of wonder and being amongst the first to tinker with these promising technologies that were going to change the world for the better and now it's 2024 and we've screwed it all up.
I don't want to defend Altman. He may or may not be a good actor. But as an engineer, I love the idea of building something magical, yet lately that's not straightforward tinkering - unless you force your way - because people raise all sorts of concerns that they wouldn't have 30 years ago. Google (search) was built on similar data harvesting and we all loved it in the early days, because it was immensely useful. So is ChatGPT, but people are far more vocal nowadays about how what it's doing is wrong from various angles. And all their concerns are valid. But if openai had started out by seeking permission to train on any and every piece of content out there (like this comment, for example) they wouldn't have been able to create something as good (and bad) as ChatGPT. In the early search days, this was settled (for a while) via robots.txt, which for all intents and purposes openai should be adhering to anyway.
But it's more nuanced for LLMs, because LLMs create derivative content, and we're going to have to decide how we think about and regulate what is essentially a new domain and method and angle on existing legislation. Until that happens, there will be friction, and given we live in these particular times, people will be outraged.
That said, using SJ's voice given she explicitly refused is unacceptable. It gets interesting if there really is a voice actor that sounds just like her, but now that openai ceased using that voice, the chances of seeing that play out in court are slimmer.
They're free because they could not achieve network effects if there was a monetary cost involved for users. So basically if they weren't free they wouldn't exist (at scale).
With or without EU regulations, client software could decide to discard all cookies once the user has "left" the site. Or it could block cross domain cookies of its own volition. Yes, it doesn't fix the fundamental issue, but it does address it for those that want to fix it against the tide. Yes, it comes with drawbacks, but it is what it is so long as we don't collectively move towards paying for content, ideally in micro form.
I sometimes come across articles in local publications that ask me to subscribe - dude, seriously? Do you expect me to subscribe to an Alaskan publication when I live half the world away and could not care less of what happens there, but just want to read this one article that seems interesting?
So instead we have ad funded websites that have to do what they have to do in order to make some money and keep publishing whatever it is they publish. Hence tracking cookies.
Everyone's needs would be better served if we could pay for content the same way we did back in the day of printed newspapers. You buy today's edition and you get today's edition and no one except the newsagent is tracking you (if you happen to regularly buy the newspaper from her, she'll remember you, and she may even suggest additional newspapers to buy but it's implied, right? we dislike machine tracking, not humans remembering our buying habits).
Alas, we don't have that. We have intrusive tracking and subscriptions, even though technically it's something we could build in weeks (lest the payment companies didn't make it unfeasible, for their own benefit).
And people do sometimes try to figure it out. Bundles come to mind. Everything -- except micro transactions allowing you to purchase just. this. article. And while micro transactions don't exclude tracking, companies are more likely (is this wishful thinking?) to be careful with a paying customer's experience than with freeloaders, which is what we insist of being, while putting up demands as to what publishers can do with our data.
Coffee shops will sell rituals, status, prestige, sophistication or the appearance thereof. Same as every other business. But that's not to say the product can't be superior - it can. It also doesn't say that every product that makes use of those marketing techniques is superior; but even if it isn't, if the customer walks away happy, they must've done something right, right?
Don't we do the same with the technology we're working on? How often is it truly better beyond any critique? People were getting stuff done even before our products were around with less fuss and a different set of problems. We do what we do to end up busy with stuff so we can do what we do all over again, don't we? I digress.
It does get tiresome when everyone is trying to sell you an experience and it becomes disappointing when the selling of experiences becomes so commoditized, the thing being sold loses its credibility as something special on account of being sold as such. Is it a crisis of authenticity?
To each, their own. I used to tinker with espresso based drinks, but I'm mostly over it. I've learned to discern (some) better coffee beans from others, but I mostly don't drink that - I can't justify paying that much for a coffee I brew myself and that I may botch out of being in a hurry. It's also a distraction that takes time I don't have anymore. But it was fun to explore for a while and I now own a very fancy looking espresso machine, grinder and all sorts of acccessories.