I've done so much startup stuff I'm equally bad at all of it.
I currently work coaching Founders globally from a base in Singapore: https://coaching.figuringshitout.com/
I formerly was a 3x Founder and have worked in Engineering, Design, Product & Growth.
I also have a background in Computer Vision (designed a single camera 3D tracking algorithm), Augmented Reality (Designed a AR prototype for FEMA to manage disaster response workers), Tabletop/Touch Computing (Studied how people's collaborative behaviors change when put under time pressure), HCI (Studied it for 4 years), Interaction Design (ditto) and am well read in Psychology (esp. Social Psych), Economics, & other random trivia.
No, by far the most parsimonious explanation is they got slapped by a capricious US government so they went overboard on caution in an attempt not to generate any more controversy. A predictable response of chaotic government regulation.
Because that opens you up to an entirely new class of attack. You have to set the limit somewhere and if you set it at INT_MAX, then a malicious user could find a O(n^2) path in your password validator and input a 4GB password that locks up the machine. Or they could create 1000 users in a row with 4GB passwords and fill up your storage.
The purpose of a system is what it does. You're never going to have success optimizing a system towards goals that are not the goals of the system. You need to first assess what the system is optimizing towards in the first place and now to change the incentives, otherwise you're going to misdiagnose competence as incompetence.
I think the most important thing to be aware of is that your own personal estimation in how willing some group of people is to help is regularly off by several orders of magnitude.
I've had people assume that person X must be asked several times a day for help when they're really asked once every few years. Alternatively, I know people who assume they are sending some totally unique request to someone who gets a dozen of the same inquiry every single day.
Until you get a good baseline figure of how competitive your request for help is, everything else is pre-mature optimization. The best thing is to just be lightweight about it and dash something off as soon as you think of it and to not be too emotionally invested in whether you get a response or not. Only when you gather evidence that the response rate is below what you expected should you try to optimize how you ask.
What I'm curious about is why all AI written articles try to hide they were written with AI vs being open about it. I'd actually be far more willing to engage with an AI written article if the author shares the chat transcripts that lead them to the finished piece and I could load that context into my own session and ask additional questions/interrogate my own ideas branching from it.
Instead, people always try and pull the illusion as if the AI didn't exist.
The more parsimonious explanation is that commercial jet engine production is downstream of commercial airbody production and China's currently limited by COMAC's scaling woes. All the money and talent in the world can't replicate real users generating real data that you can use to improve.
I'd argue the opposite that jet engines have a market structure that's uniquely terrible for traditional free market societies. There's a few industries where structurally, companies can only exit the market but it's almost impossible for a new company to enter. Airframes, jet engines, CPU manufacturing, lithography etc.
What this dynamic doesn't make any company immune from though is corporate rot. You've seen the rot take down Boeing and Intel from the inside as a slow moving car wreck. There's no reason the rot can't take down ASML, TSMC or Airbus as well. The free market fundamentally doesn't have a good response to this problem, excess capital is taken out of these companies during good times and then they run to governments seeking bailouts during bad times but governments don't know how to mandate good corporate governance.
I think a lot of the jet engine manufacturers are seeing this same corporate rot process, the number of high profile scandals across the industry and reports of insiders on how the number crunchers are taking over the business are strangely reminiscent of what we heard out of Boeing and Intel.
This is a counter intuitive result around surveying. Best way I’ve found to explain it is if you want to test if a soup is too salty, it’s about the size of the spoon, not the size of the pot.
The paradox is that we love reading our own AI generated writing and hate reading anyone else's AI generated writing.
On a recent weeklong trip to the Philippines, I generated over a 500 page novel's worth of content from AI around various aspects of Filipino history, culture, social dynamics etc. and actually went over it at least 3 times to fully absorb the material.
But if someone handed me even a 3000 word essay on the Philippines clearly written by AI, I would not be able to get to the end of it.
The entire "blame" paradigm is unproductive. Does Lyft "blame" Uber for it's lowered market share?
The entire system (including nurses and technicians) are just agents making semi-rational decisions in their own self interest. Is it important to judge people within an existing system or is it important to look at locus points that, when pressure is applied, can make durable changes to the system?
> But, for scientists, I find that these tools address the problem of the exploding complexity barrier in the frontier. Every day, it grows harder and harder to contain a mental map of recent relevant progress by simple virtue of the amount being produced.
AI is going to both help and hinder this process though. At the end of the day, mathematics is mostly a social process at this point. The goal is not raw number of theorems proven, it’s how proving theorems affects the working operational models of mathematicians. Only a rare few new theorems in mathematics nowadays have direct real world applicability.
If AI produced legitimate theoretical breakthroughs at a pace mathematicians are unable to absorb, then the impact will be neutral to negative.
That’s not an analyst, that’s a pundit. An analyst can have a clear point of view that is different from yours and, very far off the consensus in any direction. But the value of an analyst is they have a consistent point of view that they apply to any situation and flag as their point of view evolves.
A pundit starts from a pre-declared conclusion and works backwards to generate the argument. An analyst lets the conclusion be dictated by the analysis.
I've done so much startup stuff I'm equally bad at all of it.
I currently work coaching Founders globally from a base in Singapore: https://coaching.figuringshitout.com/
I formerly was a 3x Founder and have worked in Engineering, Design, Product & Growth.
I also have a background in Computer Vision (designed a single camera 3D tracking algorithm), Augmented Reality (Designed a AR prototype for FEMA to manage disaster response workers), Tabletop/Touch Computing (Studied how people's collaborative behaviors change when put under time pressure), HCI (Studied it for 4 years), Interaction Design (ditto) and am well read in Psychology (esp. Social Psych), Economics, & other random trivia.
I also cook... a lot.