151–160 of 193 posts
Btw I notice many pretty bad errors in this transcription of the talk. The actual video will be up soon I hope.
Is this because it was recorded with AI tooling rather than a traditional note taker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this because it was recorded with AI tooling rather than a traditional note taker?
it was an audio recording, transcribed with speech to text models. there's definitely some errors and words lost. I also tried to emphasize this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they are totally unrelated. Web 3.0 is blockchain-backed web applications (rather than proprietary server-backed web applications, which is Web 2.0) and Software 3.0 is LLM-powered agents.
They are related in that they are pure marketing buzzwords to build enormous hype around a product, if not a dream.
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here. Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using AI instead of code. So not Human -> AI -> Create Code -> Compile Code -> Code Runs -> The Magic Happens. Instead, it's Human -> AI -> The Magic Happens.
It’s like a friend of mine who has an AI company said to me: the future isn’t building a CRM with AI. The future is saying to the AI, act like a CRM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... Who builds the AI? This is why I think the AI industry is mostly smoke and mirrors. If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Yet in the last year or so we've seen marginal improvements based mainly on increasing the scale and quality of the data they'…
> If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Recursive self-improvement is literally the endgame scenario - hard takeoff, singularity, the works. Are you really saying you're dissatisfied with the progress of those tools because they didn't manage to end the…
The progress has been adequate and expected, save for very few cases such as generative image and video, which has exceeded my expectations.
Before we reach the point where AI is self-improving on its own, we should go through stages where AI is being improved by humans using AI. That is, if these tools are capable of reasoning and are able to solve advanced logic, math, and programming challenges as shown in benchmarks, then surely they must be more capable of understanding and improving their own codebases with assistance from humans than humans could do alone.
My point is that if this was being done, we should be seeing much greater progress than we've seen so far.
Either these tools are intelligent, or they're highly overrated. Which wouldn't mean that they can't be useful, just not to the extent that they're being marketed as.
Btw I notice many pretty bad errors in this transcription of the talk. The actual video will be up soon I hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it was an audio recording, transcribed with speech to text models. there's definitely some errors and words lost. I also tried to emphasize this
Thanks for the clarification. Bit ironic given the talk’s subject. It is quite a bit of effort, but there’s something to say for going through and manually writing up the transcript like a journalist. Sometimes you can’t beat human effort ;)
[flagged]
> I think broadly speaking, software has not changed much at such a fundamental level for 70 years. I love Andrej, but come on. Writing essentially punch cards 70 years ago, writing C 40 years ago and writing Go or Typescript or Haskell 10 years ago, these are all very different activities.