Sadly I have spent lots of time with ooxml and pdf and my experience suggests there really aren’t reliable means for dealing with seemingly simple changes.
I haven’t looked under the hood here but to make simple text replacement via command line is an LLM even required? A human driven command line tool to do basic substitution on batches of files reliably would be amazing.
In these examples cost of the solution does not generally scale with the use of the solution in the same way we see token use. In the case of LLMs the cost of use scales very differently than seat licensing.
Many corporations have found they have a new cost center drawing tens of millions or more with little direct evidence of productivity gain. Corporations are probably best positioned to either switch providers, leverage router solutions or at worst use the fact that they could to drive prices down from the proprietary providers.
I’m not a historian but I think FCKEditor and TinyMCE predated contenteditable. These were solutions wrapping textarea back in the day if my memory serves me.
I think the practice of tying the use of one product to coerce the loss of rights of your private data has some comparables (noted below).
The law seems to recognize that companies coercing someone to give up money using tie-ins may be illegal but is not yet recognizing data as a monetary equivalent. Because it’s not money it’s not regulated.
Isn’t it time that our data be treated as the exchange of value that it is? And the coercion should be something we are protected against?
Yes, Meta focusing on this type of research does set off alarm bells for me. I suspect this isn’t about some altruistic intention to help people with disabilities but something a little more surveillance oriented.
That’s why it’s so perplexing as a consumer when AI gets pushed so hard as if it’s a feature. Consumers don’t care what code your devs use, what cloud platform you deploy on, so why should they care about AI in your product? AI is not a feature; features are features tell me about those.
This was true 20 years ago (not sure about now). As an atheist/agnostic in basic training I used to try different church services to get away from the barracks on Sundays. If you didn’t you were definitely assigned some cleaning detail instead of having down time. At the time it didn’t come across as discrimination and felt more like a way to keep control. At various times when control was lax bad stuff happened, e.g. fighting, sex, awol, etc. In a new light this does seem like it has a disparate impact.
Right the intention was to stop unchecked surveillance capitalism, now they use the normalcy of annoyance to wear you down such that you auto accept terms that you probably wouldn’t agree to if you read them. That’s what they want now.
This and other bad behavior will only go away when government says, “no this is predatory and you can’t do it” instead of saying “everything is OK if the user consents to it”.
It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.
> You make it sound like writing good requirements is easy.
I am certain I didn’t say that. To be a good product owner one needs skill, care and understanding of the business intent. If you know the business intent but lack the skill to express it as a useful requirement then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill but lack understanding or ability to understand the business intent then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill and understand the business intent but you are careless in your work then it’ll be insufficient too. If the problem space is emergent then having all three might not be good enough either.
It’s certainly true that good engineering teams can deeply understand the problem space enough to get to a business outcome without requirement documents.
I just wouldn’t bet that LLMs are going to make any of these realities any better, they might exacerbate those issues.
We now have product owners trying to farm out their work to an LLM. The process didn’t work before because the person writing the requirements either put out vague requirements or bad requirements because they didn’t understand the business intent (or were careless).
LLMs just take the same vague or poor requirements and make them look believable until you dig in to them.