161–170 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can someone so smart become a hype machine? I can’t wrap my head around it. Maybe he had the opportunity to learn from someone he worked closely with?
Maybe you haven't seen the frontier and envisioned the possibilities?
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.
The video is now up and on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314423
[dead]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
Submitters: " Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Christ I'm gonna be forced to listen to the moronic managers and C-suites repeat this "software 3.0" bullshit incessantly from now on aren't I...
Who wants to start a pool on when the first advertisement for "Software 3.0" goes up in an airport somewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That jibes with what Nadella said in an interview not too long ago. Essentially, SaaS apps disappear entirely as LLMs interface directly with the underlying data store. The unspoken implication being that software as we understand it goes away as people interface with LLMs directly rather than ~~computers~~ software at all. I kind of expect that from someone heading a company that appears to have sold-the-farm in an…
> people interface with LLMs directly rather than software at all What does this mean? An LLM is used via a software interface. I don’t understand how “take software out of the loop” makes any sense when we are using reprogrammable computers.
Our current computing paradigm is built on APIs stacked on APIs.
Those APIs exist to standardize communication between entities.
LLMs are pretty good at communicating between entities.
Why not replace APIs with some form of LLM?
The rebuttal would be around determinism and maintainability, but I don't think the strongman argument is weak enough to dismiss out of hand. Granted: these would likely be highly-tuned, more deterministic specialized LLMs.
I find it hard to care for the marginal improvements in a glorifiedutocomplete that guzzles a shit ton of water and electricity (all stuff that can be used for more useful stuff than generating a picture of a cat with human hands or some lazy rando's essay assignment) and then ends up having to be coddled by a real engineer into a working solution. Software 2.0? 3.0? Why stop there? Why not software 1911.1337? We wen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Submitters: " Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
right, can you please move this whole discussion thread over there then, to avoid the duplicate conversation?
In this case the determining factor is that the original submission was not the verbatim speech that the speaker gave, and the speaker himself complained that that some of the transcription was inaccurate.
This then caused significant meta-discussion about the inaccuracy of the transcription. For the other comments that were about the content itself, we can't be sure if those comments were made in response to parts of the talk that were accurately or inaccurately transcribed.
We understand there may be overlapping comments, but that's a price we have to pay given the other considerations. No decision would be perfect, and it's not the same as usual "dupe" scenarios. We have to be a bit flexible when the situation is different from the norm in important ways.
[flagged]