> HN is showing (expected) dismissing attitude towards this idea. That tells me it might work :) !
I recently learned the name of this logical fallacy: Galileo gambit. It’s one of my pet peeves. Yes, we all know Dropbox was infamously dismissed by the top comment on HN. No, just because someone criticizes your project on here doesn’t mean it’ll be a big success.
Instead of fixing the education system and giving it the resources it deserves (eg paying teachers more like the other reply said) we’re going to “fix it” by ossifying a two tiered system where wealthy kids get individualized attention from well trained adults while poor kids are taught by AI.
I’m on the same boat. I get why people do it. Writing prose is significantly slower than consuming it, but there’s still a part of me that thinks “if you didn’t think writing was a good use of your time, why would reading this content be a use of mine”. I don’t mind AI-assisted writing but it’s hard to know to how much human editing was involved when the text shows so many AI tells. Almost by definition, AI writing is average it’s hard to justify spending the time when there’s so much content out there.
So tired of this false equivalence between left and right politics in the US. So because major LLMs support a increase in the minimum wage we need to offset it with an LLM that has spouted Nazi propaganda and lets you generate porn image of real people?
It really is that simple. “Users of company with a long track record of unethical behavior surprised at the company’s latest unethical business decision.”
I know it’s not easy for some to stop using their platform for some reason or another. That’s the point. When you use their product not because they are the best choice in a free market with options, but when you use it because you have to. Just don’t surprised when FB keeps pushing the limits.
Growing up, I’d wonder how people could work for companies like cigarette manufacturers even after it became well known that their products wreck havoc on your health.
This comment is a masterclass in the type of mental gymnastics people do to justify working for these kind of companies.
> Is the company toxic? where do you draw the line?
You couldn’t even answer the question you yourself posed.
Damn this comment really made the anti-unionists come out of the woodwork. I’ll admit, I’m a bit skeptical and think it’s not a given that the benefits you listed will come to be.
But I’ve been annoyed at the significant shift in tone that software company executives’ have used when communicating with employees lately. For one, we went from being admittedly pampered compared to most other industries to getting threats of mass layoffs unless we do more and demand less.
I wouldn’t mind the idea of using the possibility of unions to have executives back off, but if people are going to pop off at mere suggestion of unions I don’t think we’d get very far.
> it was born of some arrogance that they were speeding towards the inevitability of AGI
I think it was partly also PR. Google, OpenAI and Anthropic are fighting for mindshare and Dalle-E, Sora, Nano banana, etc generated a lot of media buzz for Google and OpenAI at various points in time.
He was on stage and had a mic. I don’t know that the students had a lot of options to make their voices heard in the situation. And since folks like Schmidt already have access to channels to spread their opinions and this was the students’ graduation I think they get a pass.
People who reach outlier-level success in a field tend to have strong opinions and an emotional connection to said field. It’s probably a non-trivial part of why they are so successful.
Maybe for folks who are deep into this, but it’s not exactly accessible. I tried reading up on it a couple of months ago, but parsing through what hardware I needed, the model and how to configure it (model size vs quantization), how I’d get access to the hardware (which for decent results in coding, new hardware runs $4k-$10k last I checked)—it had a non trivial barrier of entry. I was trying to do this over a long weekend and ran out of time. I’ll have to look into it again because having the local option would be great.
Edit: the replies to my comment are great examples of what I’m talking about when I say it’s hard to determine what hardware I’d need :).
Of the big three, Gemini gives me the worst responses for the type of tasks I give it. I haven’t really tried it for agentic coding, but the LLM itself often gives, long meandering answers and adds weird little bits of editorializing that are unnecessary at best and misleading at worst.
I get that credit cards are a barrier of entry but I’m more willing to give providers a break now that AI agents make it much easier to abuse free tiers. It’s also harder for smaller companies to offer free tiers. If we want a more diverse set of service providers we as customers need to be willing to accept some trade-offs.
The irony in your comment is that you accuse the OP of interpreting the world based on his own warped view of it rather than what’s actually in front of him, yet you’re doing precisely that. The OP did not call Altman racist and made a point to draw the distinction. He also claims his is not the only example of this and is effectively encouraging an investigative journalist and the rest of HN to look into it and verify for ourselves.
Some degree of skepticism is healthy here. An online comment is not definitive proof, and it’s all too easy to pile accusations as part of a comment thread that’s already critical of someone. But the way you readily armchair psychoanalyze and dismiss the OP tells me you’re not engaging in an honest way.
I recently learned the name of this logical fallacy: Galileo gambit. It’s one of my pet peeves. Yes, we all know Dropbox was infamously dismissed by the top comment on HN. No, just because someone criticizes your project on here doesn’t mean it’ll be a big success.
Instead of fixing the education system and giving it the resources it deserves (eg paying teachers more like the other reply said) we’re going to “fix it” by ossifying a two tiered system where wealthy kids get individualized attention from well trained adults while poor kids are taught by AI.