This is funny because as a CS grad, I cringe about 75% of the time when blockchain enthusiasts make pitches that are oblivious to the workings of blockchains, the tech underneath, and their alternatives.
If the blockchain community can't understand blockchain, it's going to be nigh impossible to convey comprehension to the general public.
The general public generally just wants the authorities whose job it is to manage voting to do so in a competent manner. It's worth noting that there's really only been one candidate for national election in modern history who has called into question the fairness of our elections. (And then only when he lost.)
Most of us understand that the folks who work for the Secretaries of State are generally doing the best they can with the resources we provide, and we don't want to provide more resources so they can do a "better" job.
I suppose I use the PWA differently than most people? I just leave it open all the time, so I don't care how long it takes to start or how much data it takes to download to boot.
Can pretty quickly see that the CEO comp # in question is not the stock. Houston sold many times more than $1.5m in stock in 2023. The $1.5m is likely direct cash and services.
I love this idea, and would be comfortable pushing the number even higher. The cool part about the US is it's relatively unpopulated as compared to European countries.
We could probably fit another 200 million or so people in the eastern half of the country, just by bringing it to the level of density of, say, the UK. If we were willing to live as densely as the Dutch, perhaps we could add 300 million in the eastern half.
Your proposal is fairly modest compared to some of the ideas out there.
In his wildly enthusiastic 1860 book The Central Gold Region, William Gilpin claimed that the Mississipi Basin could support at population of 1.2 billion people, and was destined to become the “world’s amphitheatre”, with all of the world’s trade running through it in a grand “Asiatic and European Railway”.
> people who live under the level of the sea itself
Your responses read as facetious. I chose two relatively large & wealthy European countries for comparison. But the US ranks 186/249 for population density; there is a lot of room for increased density if it is desired.
If you don't like those, here are some alternate compares you can sub into my post if it helps you engage with the concept:
- Belgium
- India
- China
- Vietnam
- Germany
- Italy
- South Korea
- Nigeria
- Spain
If the US were as dense as the EU, there would be ~1 billion Americans now.
> True end-user programming and product manager programming are coming
This means that either product managers will have to start (effectively) writing in-depth specs again, or they will have to learn to accept the LLM's ideas in a way that most have not accepted their human programmers' ideas.
Definitely will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Since automated coding systems can revise code and show the results much quicker than most human engineers can, writing detailed specs could be less necessary.
The bottleneck is still the person who has to evaluate the results.
The larger point is that building software is about making tons of decisions about how it works. Someone has to make those decisions. Either PMs will be happy letting machines make the decisions where they do not let programmers decide now. Or the PMs will have to make all the decisions before (spec) or after (evaluation + feedback look like you suggest).
I really don't get their model. They have very advanced models, but the service overall seems to be a jumble of priorities. Some examples:
Anthropic doesn't offer an unlimited chatbot service, only plans that give you "more" usage, whatever that means. If you have an API key, you are "unlimited," so they have the capability. Why doesn't the chatbot allow one to use their API key in the Claude app to get unlimited usage? (Yes, I know there are third-party BYOK tools. That's not the question.)
Claude appears to be smart enough to make an Excel spreadsheet with simple formulae. However, it is apparently prevented from making any kind of file. Why? What principle underlies that guardrail that does not also apply to Computer Use?
Really want to make Claude my daily driver, but right now it often feels too much like a research project.
Even with API, depending what tier you are sitting on, there is daily limits. OpenAI used to be able to generate files for you, they changed that. It was useful.
Interestingly enough, after Claude refused to generate a file for me, I sent the same request to ChatGPT and got the Excel file I wanted.
I wasn't aware of tiers in the Claude API, they are not mentioned on the API pricing page. Are the limits disclosed or just based on vibes like they are for the chatbot?
What do you mean by “file” here? I’m making files on a daily basis, including CSVs, html, executable code, XML, JSON and other formats. It built me an entire visual wireframe for something the other day.
Are you using artefacts?
But I’m maybe misunderstanding your point because my use is relatively basic through the built in chatbot.
I asked it to generate a very basic Excel file. It generated text as Markdown. I reiterated that I want an Excel file with formulae and it provided this as part of its response:
----
No, I am not able to generate or create an actual Excel file. As an AI language model, I don't have the capability to create, upload, or send files of any kind, including Excel spreadsheets.
It does not have access to the Excel app. You may be able to generate the .xlsx file using python libraries but you would need to run the python code on your own. ChatGPT can run generated code, which is probably why it works there.
I don't expect it to have the Excel app, I expect it to run the code it is capable of generating.
This is what I mean by their strategy being a jumble. Claude can do the hard part of figuring out what code to write and writing it, but then refuses to do the easier part of executing the code.
> you'd be better off with ChatGPT with Code Interpreter mode
Yes, this is what I am saying. Why go to the trouble to build something as capable as Claude and then hamstring it from being as useful as ChatGPT? I have no doubt that Claude could be more useful if the Anthropic team would let it shine.
I have used Artifacts a couple of times and found them useful.
But now I am even more confused. They make an LLM that can generate code. They make a sandbox to run generated code. They will even host public(!) apps that run generated code.
But what they will not do is run code in the chatbot? Unless the chatbot context decides the code is worthy of going into an Artifact? This is kind of what I mean by the offering being jumbled.
BTW saw your writeup on the LLM pricing calculator -- very cool!
Yeah I can't imagine Claude will be without a server-side code execution platform forever. Both OpenAI (Code Interpreter) and Gemini (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/code-execution) have had that for a while now, and it's spectacularly useful. It fills a major gap in a Chatbot's skills too, since it lets them reliably run calculations.
Sandboxing is a hard problem, but it's not like Anthropic are short on money or engineering talent these days.
See, I think this is a case of personal preference. I much prefer Claude's approach of figuring out the code and writing it for me to execute myself, rather than having it all in one box. Apart from anything else, it makes me think a little more about the process, and the desired outcome, rather than just iterate, click, iterate, click.
It's marginally less efficient, for sure, but it allows me greater visibility on the process, and gives me more confidence that whatever it's doing is what I want it to do.
But maybe that's some weird luddite-ism on my part, and I should just embrace an even blacker box where everything is done in the tool.
YMMV obviously. If I ask the magic box to make a spreadsheet, I don't need to see the Python for that any more than I need to see the code it uses to summarize something I paste in. I don't really even care that it has to write code to make the spreadsheet at all.
If I understand correctly, you are selling a B2B version of something where B2C options exist? In that case, suggestions:
- More sophisticated logins: Google/etc.
- Integrations
- Attestations (e.g. HIPAA compliance etc.)
- Team management functionality
- APIs
- Audit trails
- Offline communications & support. I'll add payment via invoice here. I have onboarded Enterprise customers who only needed Enterprise pricing because they needed to bay by check, and/or they wanted a phone number to call for help (which they tended to not use often).
I will say that if your market is well-covered in B2C offerings, you may want to either niche down further by adding core features businesses need. For example, can you help them enforce some kind of corporate standard (possibly via workflow)?
Or you may want to get into a different market altogether.
If this was necessary to solve a problem, why wouldn't the existing Internet access points simply solve the problems?
For example, why would Apple not add liveness detection to its devices, which users already trust with their biometric data?
One could imagine a Web standard that specifies minimum capabilities for user agents, which could then be implemented in a variety of ways. Apple might use an upgraded FaceID, for example.
That would have the added benefit of being able to verify liveness anywhere, anytime, unlike the Orbs.
> For example, why would Apple not add liveness detection to its devices, which users already trust with their biometric data?
That's what I always assumed too, that existing biometrics on mobile would be adequate. This World Coin Orbo bullshit doe not bring anything to the table except get sama one step closer to his wet dream fantasy of WorLD DomInaAtiOn.
This is what I thought. Finger print and face detection have been added with little fanfare. FAANG wont let this become a defacfo standard without a fight.
This is funny because as a CS grad, I cringe about 75% of the time when blockchain enthusiasts make pitches that are oblivious to the workings of blockchains, the tech underneath, and their alternatives.
If the blockchain community can't understand blockchain, it's going to be nigh impossible to convey comprehension to the general public.
The general public generally just wants the authorities whose job it is to manage voting to do so in a competent manner. It's worth noting that there's really only been one candidate for national election in modern history who has called into question the fairness of our elections. (And then only when he lost.)
Most of us understand that the folks who work for the Secretaries of State are generally doing the best they can with the resources we provide, and we don't want to provide more resources so they can do a "better" job.