201–210 of 245 posts
I was interested. Clicked the try button and just another wait list. When will Google learn that the method that worked so well with Gmail doesn't work any more. There are so many shiny toys to play with now, I will have forgotten about this tomorrow.
I already pay $20/month for Gemini, I clicked sign up and had access instantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a repo for this? I've thought that this would be a great way to compose an Agentic system, I'd love to see how you're doing it.
Langroid has this kind of design (I’m the lead dev): https://github.com/langroid/langroid Quick tour: https://langroid.github.io/langroid/tutorials/langroid-tour/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it was a joke, VCs are happy to replace all jobs except their own.
Why, they'd happily delegate their own job if they've got to keep the proceeds.
Anyway, it was probably just a joke... so not sure we need to unravel it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them. Nailed it. At the end of the day, companies are automatons. It is up to use to update the reward and punishment functions to get the behaviour we desire. Behaviourism 101
Got it: I was just following orders.
On a human level, people are held to a set of laws and exist in a world of social norms. "Following orders" is of course not the most important goal in most contexts; it is not the way most people think of their own ethics (hopefully) nor the way society wants people to behave. Even in military contexts, there is often the notion of a "lawful order".
When it comes to public for-profit companies, they are expected to generate a profit for their shareholders and abide by various laws, including their own charters. To demand or expect them to do more than this is foolish. Social pressure can help but is unreliable and changes over time. To expect that a few humans will step up to be heros exactly when we need them and "save the day" from a broken system is wishful thinking. We have to do better than this. Blaming something that is the statistical norm is scapegoating. In many/most situations, the problem is the system, not the actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame the system, not the actors. See a recent HN submission, The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case: https://ncase.me/trust/ If there's one big takeaway from all of game theory, it's this: What the game is, defines what the players do. Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust, it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. That may seem cynical or naive -- that we're "merely" products…
> we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them. Nailed it. At the end of the day, companies are automatons. It is up to use to update the reward and punishment functions to get the behaviour we desire. Behaviourism 101
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame the system, not the actors. See a recent HN submission, The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case: https://ncase.me/trust/ If there's one big takeaway from all of game theory, it's this: What the game is, defines what the players do. Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust, it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. That may seem cynical or naive -- that we're "merely" products…
> we have to define what kind of society we want, predict likely responses, and build systems to manage them. Nailed it. At the end of the day, companies are automatons. It is up to use to update the reward and punishment functions to get the behaviour we desire. Behaviourism 101
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, they'd happily delegate their own job if they've got to keep the proceeds.
Can you think of an example in history where labour was replaced with tech and the displaced workers kept their income stream? If a machine can do your job, (eventually) I'll be cheaper to use that machine instead of you and you'll no longer have a job. Is that not a given? Anyway, it was probably just a joke... so not sure we need to unravel it all.
But VCs own their business, they are not employees. If you own a bakery, and buy a machine to make the dough instead of doing it by hand, and an automatic oven to relieve you form tracking the temperature manually, you of course keep the proceeds from the improved efficiency (after you pay the credit you took to purchase the machines).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you think of an example in history where labour was replaced with tech and the displaced workers kept their income stream? If a machine can do your job, (eventually) I'll be cheaper to use that machine instead of you and you'll no longer have a job. Is that not a given? Anyway, it was probably just a joke... so not sure we need to unravel it all.
Displaced hired personnel of course cannot hope for that. But VCs own their business, they are not employees. If you own a bakery, and buy a machine to make the dough instead of doing it by hand, and an automatic oven to relieve you form tracking the temperature manually, you of course keep the proceeds from the improved efficiency (after you pay the credit you took to purchase the machines).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google’s ability to offer inference for free is a massive competitive advantage vs everyone else: Haven't tried Jules myself yet, still playing around with Codex, but personally I don't really care if it's free or not. If it solves my problems better than the others, then I'll use it, otherwise I'll use other things. I'm sure I'm not alone in focusing on how well it works, rather than what it costs (until a certain…
Technically speaking,the strategy they execute is called "Loss Leader". As Loss Leader, the company offers a product at a reduced price to attract users, create stickiness, and through that aims to capture the market. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the work that currently gets pushed back with 'no capacity maybe in Q+2' will become viable and any brief moment of spare capacity will immediately be filled. A new backlog will start to fill up and the cycle repeats.
Maybe, though, the backlog of the future will actually be less important than the backlog of today? Bug fixes will go out, software quality will increase? I doubt it, but one can dream.