331–340 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. In 2017 Google literally gave us transformer architecture all current AI boom is based on.
And what did they do with it for the next five years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it known that there are fewer than infinity tools?
For any given time period N, if it takes > 0 time or effort to make a tool, then there are provably less possible tools than infinity for sure. If we consider time period of length infinity, then it is less clear (I don’t have room in the margins to write out my proof), but since near as we can tell we don’t have infinity time, does it matter?
Meta is fumbling hard. Winning the AI race is about marketing at this point - the difference between the models is negligible. Chat GPT is the one on everyone's lips outside of technology, and in the media. They have a platform by which to push some kind of assistant but where is it? I log into facebook and it's buried in the sidebar as Meta AI. Why aren't they shoving it down my throat? They have a huge platform of…
Meta is paying Anthropic to give its devs access to Claude because it's that much better than their internal models. You think that's a marketing problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new head is Chinese. There was a screenshot on Blind of his org at Apple and it was well over a hundred nearly exclusively Chinese reports
Where are all these genius American AI scientists that they should hire instead? Pull up a list of the top 1000 most cited AI research papers published in the last decade and look at the authors. You'll find them full of names from China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Israel. They are the ones getting jobs. This isn't discrimination, just reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big tech is suffering from the incumbents disease. What worked well for extracting profits from stable cash cows doesn't work in fields that are moving rapidly. Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. Everyone who knew how to work in that environment has moved on or moved up. Were I the CEO of a company like that I'd reduce headcount in the legacy orgs, transition them to…
> Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. In 2017 Google literally gave us transformer architecture all current AI boom is based on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wishful thinking
Tbh yes. I like AI but I'm getting a bit sick of the hype. All our top dogs want AI in everything no matter whether it actually benefits the product. They even know it's senseless but they need to show the shareholders that they are all-in on AI. It's really time for this bubble to collapse so we can go back to working on things that actually make sense rather than ticking boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases. My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spe…
> My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action" lol, that works well until a big issue occurs in production
It's a total win for the management: they take credits if initiative is successful but blame someone else for failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. In 2017 Google literally gave us transformer architecture all current AI boom is based on.
And what did they do with it for the next five years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a CEO with happy shareholders has more power. The shareholder value thing is a sop, and sometimes a dangerous one. We keep trying to progressively tax money in the US to reduce the social imbalance. We can’t figure out how to tax power and the people with power like it that way. If you have power you can get money. But it’s also relatively straightforward to arrange to keep the money that you have. But they d…
I mean...what you say is not, in the face of it, false; however ... For the past few decades, the ways and the degree to which we have been genuinely trying (at the government level) to "progressively tax money" in the US have been failing and falling, respectively. If we were genuinely serious about the kind of progressive taxation you're talking about, capital gains taxes (and other kinds of taxes on non-labor inco…
Please keep in mind that at these maximums, taxes are still progressive just probably not as much as you want. You really want to make taxes more progressive? Either get rid of SS or make it taxable on all income. SS contributions are by far the least progressive part of the tax code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raises the question though, why is the lawyer talking to you in the first place, and not your manager?
Well, let's give a concrete example. I want to use an SaaS as part of my job. My manager knows this and supports it. In the process of me trying to sign up for the SaaS, I have to contact various groups in the company- the cost center folks to get an approval for spending the money to get the SaaS, the security folk to ensure we're not accidentally leaking IP to the outside world, the legal folks to make sure the con…