This take is oversimplified to where it’s literally scary - heres an honest book about the Rothchilds Bankers and Zionists with the additional context I hope you incorporate.
Sandberg built the company that polluted everything with this cynical influencer economy. Schmidt built the company that turned users into the product.
I’m lucky to have more than my share of really exceptional programmers to hang out with and they all say the same thing: “I haven’t been writing code for months and don’t expect to again”
This is a way different sentiment than “programmers aren’t needed anymore” - I’m just seeing ambition, motivation, and fun go up in lockstep.
I first heard this in November and slowly one by one it’s everyone whose opinion I respect.
FWIW the other popular topic is how abysmally stupid and limited these amazing tools continue to be, despite also being magic.
Oh and that none of us have gotten token maxxing to succeed, despite lots of trying.
This is the freshest take I have ever seen. Kudos, so cool.
My professional career has been 20 years of physical ai research and now industry. My dad insisted I take corporate accounting in undergrad.
It’s a skill I use every single day, double entry bookkeeping is one humanities great inventions and deeply related to conservation laws utility in various other areas. Could not have built my business without having gotten so into this
Topic.
as I understand, Bell Labs mandate was to improve the network, which had tons of great threads to pull on: plastics for handsets, transistors for amplification, information theory for capacity on fixed copper.
Google and Meta are ads businesses with a lot less surface area for such a mandate to have similar impact and, frankly, exciting projects people want to do.
Meanwhile they still have tons of cash so, why not, throw money at solving Atari or other shiny programs.
Also, for cultural reasons, there’s been a huge shift to expensive monolithic “moonshot programs” whose expenses need on-demand progress to justify and are simply slower and way less innovative.
3 passionate designers hiding deep inside Apple can side hustle up the key gestures that make multi touch baked enough to see a path to an iPhone - long before iPhone was any sort endgame direction they were being managed to.
Innovation thrives on lots of small teams mostly failing in the search for something worth doubling down on.
Googles et al have a new approach - aim for the moon, budget and staff for the moon, then burn cash while no one ever really polished up the fundamental enabling pieces in hindsight they needed to succeed
These techniques are the key unlocks to robustifying AI and creating certifiable trust in their behavior.
Starting with pre-deep neural network era stuff like LQR-RRT trees, to the hot topic today of contraction theory, and control barrier certificates in autonomous vehicles
We always called this “monetizing the brand” and it’s been annoying me since at least when Sperry when private equity and the shoes stopped being multi-year daily drivers
I like this metaphor about electric lighting. However, having lived in two ~1850 houses, they sure look and function a lot like they did before electricity, despite nearly every element having been “disrupted” by electricity and all the rest.
Place and routing compilers used in semiconductor design are not. Ironically, simulated annealing is the typical mechanism and is by any appropriate definition, imo, a type of AI.
Whatever you do in your life using devices that run software are proof that these tools are effective for continuing to scale complexity.
Annoying to use also ;)
I dropped my scrip when I realized a long morning sit has about the same effect but without the side effects of stimulants - which were considerable. Not to get down on stimulants, those can be amazing drugs.