Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#101

Post by johanbcn »

com2kid wrote: post #36
nwienert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not explaining why you have such a good feeling - is their team uniquely good, far ahead? Is there something specific in how they architected it? I think a lot of people are headed in this direction, they have a bad brand, the need to totally restructure their team, and probably bad equity structure now and a need for a down round, it'll be hard to get good talent.

The rabbit OS project is literally the only correct path forward for AI. Hopefully they go for local on device inference, as they removes cloud costs, solving the burning pile of cash problem most AI companies have. Directly driving a user's device (or a device hooked up to a user's account at least) means an AI can do any task that a user can do, tearing down walled gardens. No more "my car doesn't allow programmati…

Do you guys really think these obvious marketing comments will work here?

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#102

Post by mrheosuper »

neom wrote: post #71
odo1242 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the company the CEO last founded before working on Rabbit was a crypto scam, though. They’re really not giving people much reason to trust them. Plus, why a separate device and not a mobile app?

I didn't know about their crypto stuff, but the R1 is still my fav thing to play with. I'm older and I don't want a phone with me all the time, I like to go for walks without the phone, but sometimes I still want something, camera + a bit of intelligence in the pocket is great, and the R1 is fun.

R1 is rebadge android phone

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#103

Post by koakuma-chan »

odo1242 wrote: post #83
koakuma-chan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it's rate limited? I've been using it for quite a while today and it still appears to be thinking.

Hmm, maybe it depends? I was kinda far into a long conversation and it stopped thinking midway through. Maybe it’s based on context length and not a direct rate limit

I feel like it doesn't think when it doesn't need to. It always been like that.

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#104

Post by 63stack »

odo1242 wrote: post #37
neom wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think people wrote them off WAY too quickly, I don't really want to get into a back and forth on if they should have done tech reviews even at all blah blah blah, yeah I agree wasn't an ideal way to introduce yourself to the world, but if you listen to their CEO, use their product, and pay attention to the team they've put together... I feel strongly they're onto something big.

Keep in mind that the company the CEO last founded before working on Rabbit was a crypto scam, though. They’re really not giving people much reason to trust them. Plus, why a separate device and not a mobile app?

"Listen to their CEO"

"No, not the scam part"

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#105

Post by bjackman »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #9

Why did they hide the model thought details? Thoughts look like this now: Analyzing TypeScript Errors I'm currently focused on the actions/user.ts file, where I've identified a few issues. Specifically, I need to address a "Cannot find name" error related to UpdateUserDetailsFormState, and confirm that the intended target is UpdateUserDetailsFormInput. There might be some other discrepancies in the file that I need t…

Someone else said in this case that you can access it with premium subscription but I have also heard that some products are hiding the CoT because of concerns about distillation

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#106

Post by glitchc »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #79
glitchc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI as the bridge to fix expert systems. Now I've heard it all! Obligatory video (sound familiar?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLHc7rlac2s

I think I’m missing your point. Perhaps we don’t share the same understanding of what I mean by AI and Expert Systems. I wouldn’t call expert systems AI even though the early use of AI referred to symbolic reasoners used in expert systems. If you are capturing domain knowledge from an expert and creating a system around it, what would you call that? I think modern AI will help deliver on the promise of expert systems…

Expert Systems (TM) was trademarked (abandoned now) way way back in 1982. It was a licensed term that meant something very specific to those with a long background in technology. You sound new to the space and thus want to reinvent the term for your own purposes, which is a fine thing really, but an understanding of the history behind it may save you a great deal of grief.

tl;dr, expert systems as a concept was hot! As an actual implementation, it was a colossal failure. The new AI hype train has always contained echoes of expert systems, and I was giddy with excitement to see someone complete the loop. The serpent eats its own tail after all. Which just goes to show that folks would be considerably more enlightened if they just read a bit more history.

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#107

Post by cjbgkagh »

glitchc wrote: post #106
cjbgkagh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I’m missing your point. Perhaps we don’t share the same understanding of what I mean by AI and Expert Systems. I wouldn’t call expert systems AI even though the early use of AI referred to symbolic reasoners used in expert systems. If you are capturing domain knowledge from an expert and creating a system around it, what would you call that? I think modern AI will help deliver on the promise of expert systems…

Expert Systems (TM) was trademarked (abandoned now) way way back in 1982. It was a licensed term that meant something very specific to those with a long background in technology. You sound new to the space and thus want to reinvent the term for your own purposes, which is a fine thing really, but an understanding of the history behind it may save you a great deal of grief. tl;dr, expert systems as a concept was hot!…

I’m not new to the space, I’ve been working in tech for a very long time. I was into ontologies since the late 90s. And I agree they were in general a colossal failure, or at least didn’t live up to the general hype, they did find success in various niches and did have a big impact on the world. Tim Bernes-Lee was coming out with the semantic web stuff in 99, OWL ontologies is 2004. I did some interesting things with Freebase. I built out huge entity models and created an entirety extraction system to a help power a search engine for large scale cataloging which saw real world use. While not my work Bing and Wolfram Alpha did use such systems to improve their search/utility. Google bought Freebase and incorporated its functionality. The DoD did have success with it, and for a while Boeing had an interesting system but AFAIK they lost a lot of expertise and it atrophied somewhat.

It was in general a library science thing, like search engines were, even today I wish I could disambiguate my search queries to be able to specify which word overloading I’m referring to, be it Java the language, the city, or the coffee.

I’ve spent a decent amount of time trying to introduce these concepts to regular people and have long considered it generally hopeless. I went on to work in ML and I’ve long thought it would be easier to teach a computer to use these systems than regular people. At least AI is at a point now where it can act as a bridge.

Re: An upgraded dev experience in Google AI Studio

#110

Post by delfinom »

gexla wrote: post #27

Seeing these announcements make me nervous. I feel like I found some sort of cheat code by using AI Studio for free. Seeing them build it out, makes me wonder when they are going to start charging for it. Though Grok has been very generous as an alternate. I guess there's a lot of good options out there. I'm just used to hitting limits most places, and not as good models.

Why is it even a question of "when they are going to start".

Running LLMs costs a stupid amount of money, beyond just the stupid amount of money to train them. They have to recoup that money somewhere.

Post reply on HN