51–60 of 361 posts
> Value is shifting to operations: deployment, testing, rollbacks, observability. You can't prompt 99.95% uptime on Black Friday. Neither can you prompt your way to keeping a site secure, updated, and running. I agree somewhat but eventually these can be automated with AI as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
false equivalence because machines are not human beings a lossy compression algorithm is not "inspired" when it is fed copyrighted input
> lossy compression algorithm is not "inspired" when it is fed copyrighted input That's exactly what happens when you read. Copyrighted input fed straight into your brain, a lossy storage and processing machine.
Tailwind Labs relied on a weird monetization scheme. Revenue was proportional to the pain of using the framework. The sudden improvement in getting desired UI without relying on pre-built templates killed Tailwind Labs. There are many initiatives in a similar spot, improving your experience at using Next.js would hurt Vercel. Making GitHub actions runners more reliable, stable and economical would hurt Microsoft. Imp…
> If suddenly CSS became pleasant to use Not being sarcastic, but this will never be. CSS is a perfectly functional interface, but the only way it becomes less annoying is when you abstract it behind something more user friendly like tailwind or AI (or you spend years building up knowledge and intuition for its quirks and foibles). We have decades of data at this point that fairly conclusively shows that many people…
I still feel that the main revolution of AI/LLMs will be in authoring text for such “perfectly functional”-text bases interfaces.
For example, building a “powerful and rich” query experience for any product I worked on was always an exercise in frustration. You know all the data is there, and you know SQL is infinitely capable. But you have to figure out the right UI and the right functions for that UI to call to run the right SQL query to get the right data back to the user.
Asking the user to write the SQL query is a non-starter. You either build some “UI” for it based on what you think is the main usecases, or go all in and invent a new “query language“ that you think (or hope) makes sense to your user. Now you can ask your user to blurb whatever they feel like, and hope your LLM can look at that and your db schema, and come up with the “right” SQL query for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published. The problem here is enforcement. It's well known that AI companies simply pirated content in order to train their models. No amount of license really helps in that scenario.
The problem here is the "so what?" Imagine OpenAI is required by law to list their weights on huggingface. The occasional nerd with enough GPUs can now self host. How does this solve any tangible problems with LLMs regurgitating someone else's work?
Tailwind Labs relied on a weird monetization scheme. Revenue was proportional to the pain of using the framework. The sudden improvement in getting desired UI without relying on pre-built templates killed Tailwind Labs. There are many initiatives in a similar spot, improving your experience at using Next.js would hurt Vercel. Making GitHub actions runners more reliable, stable and economical would hurt Microsoft. Imp…
> If suddenly CSS became pleasant to use Not being sarcastic, but this will never be. CSS is a perfectly functional interface, but the only way it becomes less annoying is when you abstract it behind something more user friendly like tailwind or AI (or you spend years building up knowledge and intuition for its quirks and foibles). We have decades of data at this point that fairly conclusively shows that many people…
As a fullstack dev, I couldn't do pixel-perfect CSS 10 years ago, and today I can. That's a lot of progress.
In my opinion LLMs are intellectual property theft. Just as if I started distributing copies of books. This substantially reduces the incentive for the creation of new IP. All written text, art work, etc needs to come imbued with a GPL style license: if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published.
> if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published. This feels like the simplest & best single regulation that can be applied in this industry.
In my opinion LLMs are intellectual property theft. Just as if I started distributing copies of books. This substantially reduces the incentive for the creation of new IP. All written text, art work, etc needs to come imbued with a GPL style license: if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published.
IP is the final delusion of 19th century thinking. It was crushed when we could synthesize anything, at little cost, little effort. Turns out, the hard work had to be done once, and we could automate to infinity forever.
Hold on to 19th century delusions if you wish, the future is accelerating, and you are going to be left behind.
In my opinion LLMs are intellectual property theft. Just as if I started distributing copies of books. This substantially reduces the incentive for the creation of new IP. All written text, art work, etc needs to come imbued with a GPL style license: if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published.
Commercialization may be a net good for open source, in that it helps sustain the project’s investment, but I don’t think that means that you’re somehow entitled to a commercial business just because you contributed something to the community. The moment Tailwind becomes a for-profit, commercial business, they have to duke it out just like anyone else. If the thing you sell is not defensible, it means you have a brit…
It's fine to have a project that generates html-css as long as the users can find the docs for the dependencies, but when you take away the docs and stop giving real credit to the creators it starts feeling more like plagiarism and that is what's costing tailwind here.
I see "hackers" in these comments are now advocating to make "criminal contempt of business model" a serious thing, instead of a mere meme used to describe draconian copyright and patent laws.
Tailwind Labs relied on a weird monetization scheme. Revenue was proportional to the pain of using the framework. The sudden improvement in getting desired UI without relying on pre-built templates killed Tailwind Labs. There are many initiatives in a similar spot, improving your experience at using Next.js would hurt Vercel. Making GitHub actions runners more reliable, stable and economical would hurt Microsoft. Imp…
Can you explain this one a bit? I know some folks who would absolutely increase their spend if Actions runners were better. As it stands I've seen folks trying to move off of them.