or maybe they don’t actually cache (fully) but lie and just don’t charge the user right now. at least half the users, who are probably also using the most similar tokens / prompts, wouldn’t really know the difference in latency (or care)
Because Jane Street is unabashed about greed, and yet they do not let that greed lead them into attempting to pollute and derive us of our attention every day.
Isn’t this sort of just “chain of thought” (i.e. the seminal https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 ) where the user is helping the model 1-shot or k-shot the solution instead of 0-shot? I’ve used a similar technique to great effect. I feel things are so new / moving so fast that it’s hard to have common lingo. So very helpful to have a blog / example! But I wonder if the phenomena has been seen / understood before and just in smaller circles / different name.
While I like that you debunked the article . . . I want to hear an argument for where the SWE job market can grow in a post-Claude world. I might expect something like: “CEOs are naturally greedy. So after trimming the team, they then recognized (versus “replacing” people with AI) they could actually accomplish _more_ with more engineers, each empowered with AI.
But I do like folks calling out the OP for being AI spam.
It’s not cutting corners. Apple does most of their testing using strictly internal resources, like secret “mini malls” in the Silicon Valley area. They fail because this testing biases their sampling; users must sign draconian NDAs to participate, among other things. These samples are effectively biased due to Apple’s corporate culture regarding secrecy and competition. So, Apple actually works very hard. It’s just they culturally prefer a lot of techniques that their competitors (e.g. Google and Facebook) have throughly proven as inferior.
But is Google better? Not really, they killed a lot of good products like Reader.
But is Facebook better? Not really, Cambridge Analytica and Metaverse and .. facebook products are disposable.
But I think these Apple UX bugs are misdiagnosed. Yes they are atrocious. But think about how atrocious and non-representative and non-competitive Apple’s testing population is.
Appreciate the nature and scale of the internet... and also how it's changing though, yeah?
While I agree with much of the article's thesis, it sadly appears to ignore the current impact of LLMs ...
> it’s never been easier to read new ideas, experiment with ideas, and build upon & grow those ideas with other strong thinkers on the web, owning that content all along.
But, "ownership" ? Today if you publish a blog, you don't really own the content at all. An LLM will come scrape the site and regenerate a copyright-free version to the majority of eyeballs who might otherwise land on your page. Without major changes to Fair Use, posting a blog is (now more than ever) a release of your rights to your content.
I believe a missing component here might be DRM for common bloggers. Most of the model of the "old" web envisions a system that is moving copies of content-- typically verbatim copies-- from machine to machine. But in the era of generative AI, there's the chance that the majority of content that reaches the reader is never a verbatim copy of the original.
1) Assume the buyer/seller holds capital from sources that the majority of the market considers “illicit” and/or is legally sanctioned and/or physically frozen or restricted. Aka the capital can never be called (or at a discount that is unknowable) or the transaction could be later legally reversed or nullified by one or more legal entities. But of course the StableCoin market maker fails to communicate this risk. Therefore the real value of either side of the trade could be zero despite the non-zero StableCoins being transferred. Thus that’s not really a “trade” because there are hidden substantial risks.
2) Along the lines of Matt Levine “Stablecoin treasury strategy?” Consider that the buyer is a publicly listed company, and they fundraise based upon purchase of the digital asset. Then you are doing what most banks consider is not trading but fueling speculation (and normally you can’t expose average retail investors to these risks).
The innovation of StableCoins is much less about Capitalism and much more about re-packaging fraud. And given how lax the prosecution of fraud was during the Financial Crisis, there’s a big meta-bet that StableCoin “traders” will never face losses.
Need to also consider the ones that had a qualified exit event and then the product got axed (e.g. aquihire or just customer acquisition). It’s a very different graveyard but in many cases has similar impact on the non-Founders (especially the IC SWEs).
The AT&T app and website are so bad it takes way longer than 1 minute to log in to e.g. pay your bill. The United States needs to raise the bar for large-cap negligent operators and fine the company enough to make shareholders listen.
> This lawsuit was later dropped, so it seems to have been without merit.
Lol the lawsuit against TK was filed because he refused to resign. If the lawsuit was without substance, then Sunsan Fowler must have been a conspiracy and all the Greyballing evidence also faked like the moon landing.
The top “victims” of FTX were VC speculator funds. Perhaps if TK had realized losses for Benchmark and Google like SBF did, then TK would be facing additionally wire fraud.
Moreover, Uber has effectively made employees out of many drivers while they were not treated like employees, and courts have forced payments-- that's not like disappearing deposits but since laborers were wrongly under-compensated it's effectively just as harmful.
Had SBF somehow raised say just $1-2b, which seems to be what the gap will be for the recovery, I wonder if today he'd still be a billionaire and out of jail like TK and AN.
Impressively fast response. Would Travis Kalanick be found guilty for Greyballing and more had Uber had a "run on the bank"? Would Adam Neumann be found guilty for fraud if WeWork's current Chapter 11 was more than just a real estate lease re-negotiation? If the FTX recovery rate gets up to 80-90%, SBF's net fraud might be reduced in scale. In which case, why aren't others like TK going to jail?
But that’s part of the point: ChatGPT is so hyped it bends perception. The OP article after all quoted a Google employee who has nothing to do with ChatGPT.
So how do we value ChatGPT then? Should it be as valuable as Coursera, Udacity etc put together? Should it be that PLUS Harvard Deloitte and ServiceNow? Or since they have no major moat should it be Zero? It’s hype of this scale that can rationalize unprecedented figures.