This is my experience too. At first it sounds legit, but it is very superficial and lacks context.
I fed it a fe papers on stack computers and they had a riveting discussion on how they would be the next big thing. But it lacks any insight, not even a rehashed conclusion, and doesn’t really seem to integrate the knowledge
GPTs are, in effect, rather powerful templating engines.
It's fascinating. This tech can extract a template for a typical podcast, extrapolate from a mundane CV, plug that to the template and produce a podcast script that your typical copywriter would.
> But it lacks any insight, not even a rehashed conclusion, and doesn’t really seem to integrate the knowledge
Is it the GPT that is lacking here or the source material it learned on converges to this?
You can’t gain insight by finding the most statistically likely next token.
The whole point of grand innovations is that they took years of focus on something not very likely.
Like the iPhone. In the 90s could you imagine electronics that literally everyone had in their pocket with _almost no buttons_. Or in the 70s, could u imagine everyone having their own personal computer?
I think you're close to the mark but not quite on it.
Women and children first is an artifact of modernity. It is a required value in a location where you can A) have a disaster and B) have people (men) who don't have strong bonds.
If we were all from the same family, or village, then yes your "preserving" line of thought works. But mix in a group of males who dont have women or children with them, they can push to the front as it were. Even if they don't have the numbers to be successful they are a "threat to order" that might not exist. One where men who could be helping are now fighting/keeping order.
Yes this. Even though it has been practiced for years prior at some point it was probably just instinctual and driven by emotion instead of logical thought.
The phrase and it's propagation is an artifact or modernity.
Go is to programing what Brutalism is to Architecture. It is striped bare of everything down to the most basic of forms. It is structure is laid bare, put on display and free of decoration.
If you come in and try to write Golang like other languages your going to be unhappy, your going to tell us how go sucks because NPM/PIP/Gems is better (a common lament). It's not defensive rolling up the news paper and wacking new devs to Golang and telling them "don't do it like its java/c/ruby/js/python do it like this..."
Embrace the less is more of Go and it makes more sense and gets much more pleasant.
I don't think that is a fair comparison for Brutalism. Programming's brutalism is more like Scheme: Simple, composable, sound and principled design. Golang is a "modern" McMansion: it tries to copy a modern style by unintelligently stripping away all ornamentation, but it doesn't understand the underlying theme of modernism and ultimately fails to achieve a coherent design.
This is the HN thread I didn't know I needed until I saw it.
I often wonder how many of Brutalism's ardent fans grew up in an environment dense with Brutalist structures. I'm not here to bash the movement (the finest examples are wonderful) but just a reminder that the median Brutalist building is often a bleak, bleak affair.
There's probably an analogy in there somewhere for programming too. Perhaps the best of Golang is wonderful but the median just doesn't compare.
ETA: Either way, thanks for the taking the discussion down this direction. Certainly made me chuckle.
Garbage collection screams: "look elsewhere if true brutalism is what you seek; maybe C or Pascal deserve that mantle more than a high level language like Go."
Shakes fist at clouds... Back in my day we called these "bugs" and if you didn't fix them your program didn't work.
Jest aside, there is a long list of "flaws" in LLMS that no one seems to be addressing. Hallucinations, Cut off dates, Lack of true reasoning (the parlor tricks to get there don't cut it), size/cost constraints...
LLM's face the same issues as expert systems, without the constant input of experts (subject matter) your llm becomes quickly outdated and useless, for all but the most trivial of tasks.
> It seems at this point OpenAI are too big to fail.
I think OpenAI is hoping for a break through, that I don't think will come.
I think both Nvidia and Apple smell blood in the water and want to make sure that they get access to what ever is behind the curtain and dont leave it for MS alone.
There is value there but I don't think any one is at a place to deliver on that (due to the costs you have pointed out).
Also people value. I'm guessing lots of people will, through being exposed to apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia colleagues will somehow find themselves with a job offer.
> If Netflix remained the sole streaming platform of significance it would be lumped in with the monopoly talk....
Spotify, Google, Amazon, Apple, Tidal all manage to have almost comprehensive music catalogs for me to stream. It's rare that I find something on one platform that isn't on another (Some artist exceptions exist, and are rare).
Pick 10 random films off the AFI top 100 list and tell me how to stream them. How many services do I need to watch them "for free".
Consumers want a single point of access to content. If I want to listen to a song I go to my music platform, if I want to watch content I go to the web to find out who has it... That friction is what consumers dont want or need.
That's because music costs barely anything to create vs tv/movies and the digitally distributed track is basically just advertising for the music creators merch, sponsorship deals, live gigs where they make their real money.
You can tell that's the case because practically every piece of music created has been put on youtube while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free.
So your spotify equivalent for tv/movies is going to cost $100+ a month, perhaps more because tv/movies are that much more expensive to make and that's what you were paying for cable back in the day.
But people think everything could cost $20 at most, so that's why we're going to have 10 or so streaming services and frankly that's way better than the old cable days.
CD's used to cost 20 bucks, artists used to make money on their sales.
Now they don't.
There are movies that "don't make money" because of shady accounting practices.
And I paid 100 bucks for cable for the same reason that you pay 100 bucks for internet now, lack of competition.
> while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free
There are plenty of people creating content on YouTube for what YouTube is willing to give them... and that isn't much. They have a working model because they keep creating content, not trying to squeeze every drop from the juice (over and over).
You might want to go back and look at the Paramount Decree. We would not be here if it was extended to streaming rather than allowed to expire.
No, that's because music licensing has been collected together into one or two monopolistic licensing schemes in every country. Most countries do it via a government agency, the US does it with BMI and ASCAP. It's actually kind of surprising the US hasn't broken up BMI & ASCAP with anti-trust, but they've got special dispensation just like the NFL.
Legislatures could bring in a compulsory licensing scheme for movies similar to BMI and ASCAP.
I am no expert on licensing schemes, but I've seen major artists like Taylor Swift remove their catalogues from Spotify and the like, which tells me they're not that compulsory when it comes to online streaming?
If you go back 4 years, Trans and Black Lives Matter very much dominated the DNC, and those topics today get barely a whistle. I read the whole DNC platform, it's very much not what it was a few years ago.
Meanwhile the VP candidate on the other side has a non white, non Cristian wife and has very much repudiated the racist part of the party.
I suspect that in 4-8 years you will have seen some massive shift in US politics and party platforms away from where we are today. Because it looks like both sides are making some pivots
Zuckerberg sees the writing on the wall. I suspect that he would rather see a trump admin and avoid an anti-trust fight or privacy legislation.
> Ten people who either worked at the company or are still employed at the firm described the environment as a pressure cooker in which meetings often descend into shouting matches, according to Bloomberg News.
This is what working in the Bay Area was like during the bubble, during the recovery and early Web 2.0.
You work 6 and 7 days a week, keep crazy hours, sometimes you duck out when you need to. Long lunches are a thing, you drink at the office. All personal decorum goes to hell. It becomes purely about the work, about doing well.
It's a pressure cooker, a boiler room, it is swimming with sharks. You will either learn to find a deep inner productivity or you will drown. Things get rather wild in this sort of environment. I suspect that addaral is still the drug of choice for this set.
Every one can taste their "fuck you" money and is just looking to hold on long enough to get out.
If your cut out for that sort of game its great. If you arent it's hell.
It has some of this quality.
But it's just a super positive spin on the most mundane of topics. There is an emotional play here that you would not normally see in a "resume".
It's like the wrong emotional subcarrier on the topic that is jaring...
reply