221–230 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a meme. I just can't take the phrase "blazing speed" seriously anymore. Is this intended humorously? Or is it just me
Anymore? For me it always sounded too childish or sarcastic. I would expect to see "Blazingly Fast" on a box of Hot Wheels or Nerf Blaster, not a serious tech product.
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development - https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07924
Notice how no-one (up until now) mentioned "Devin" or compared it to any other AI agent? It appears that AI moves so quickly that it was completely forgotten or little to no-one wanted to pay for its original prices. Here's the timeline: 1. Devin was $200 - $500. 2. Then Lovable, Bolt, Github Copilot and Replit reduced their AI Agent prices to $20 - $40 3. Devin was then reduced to $20. 4. Then Cursor and Windsurf AI…
Devin has been shown to have (originally) misrepresented their capabilities. Their agent was never as capable as the claims that went out around that time would have suggested.
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.
I didn't get the impression it was meant as a joke: "Every great venture capitalist in the last 70 years has missed most of the great companies of his generation... if it was a science, you could eventually dial it in and have somebody who gets 8 out of 10 [right]," the investor reasoned. "There's an intangibility to it, there's a taste aspect, the human relationship aspect, the psychology — by the way a lot of it is…
In a rational market, LPs would index, but VCs justify their 2 & 20 by controlling access…
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.
I didn't get the impression it was meant as a joke: "Every great venture capitalist in the last 70 years has missed most of the great companies of his generation... if it was a science, you could eventually dial it in and have somebody who gets 8 out of 10 [right]," the investor reasoned. "There's an intangibility to it, there's a taste aspect, the human relationship aspect, the psychology — by the way a lot of it is…
I would bet that AIs will master taste and human psychology before they'll cure cancer. (Insert Rick RubAIn meme here.)
The copy though: "Spend your time doing what you want to do!" followed by images of play video games (I presume), ride a bicycle, read a book, and play table tennis. I am cool with all of that but it feels like they're suggesting that coding is a chore to be avoided, rather than a creative and enjoyable activity.
Yea, as a hobbyist, I like to program. This sales pitch is like trying to sell me a robot that goes bicycle riding for me. Wait a minute... I like to ride my bicycle!
It's been a little addictive using Cursor recently - creating new features and fixing bugs in minutes is pretty amazing.
Let’s not fall for it, folks. Today it’s the easy tasks—things you don’t mind giving up. But tomorrow? It will be your entire job. That’s the trajectory. Let’s stay sharp.
And now we have agents which are going to multiply the pace of development even more.
We can stay sharp but I'm not sure there's really much we can do to stop our jobs - or all jobs, disappearing. Not that this is a bad thing, if it's done right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
The same was true with the aristocrats of centuries past: the capitalists who run our modern economy were once nothing more than their managers, delegates who handled the estates, their investments, their finances, growing power until they could dictate policy to their 'sovereign' and eventually dispose of them entirely.
Once they ceased to exercise their military might, some time around 17th-18th century, and chose to live off the rent on their estates, their power became more and more nominal. It either slipped (or was yanked) from their hands, or they turned capitalists themselves.
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
You talk as though a company exists in its own right independent of the humans. This is a fictional way of thinking. This attitude of "if you want me to stop acting poorly, make me" is an abdication of all responsibility. It's the idea that individuals and institutions must somehow fix society from the top down or the outside in, which history has shown doesn't work. No one is going to come along and make you be sens…
I didn’t say that, nor do I mean that.
My point is this: don’t be surprised when people or organizations act rationally according to the situations they find themselves in.
Go ahead and blame people and see if that solves anything! What is your theory for change? Mine is about probabilistic realism.
Ethics matters, of course. We can dislike how some (one/org) acts — and then what do we do? Hoping they act better is not a good plan.
I see it over and over — people label something as unethical and say e.g. “they shouldn’t do that” and that’s the end of the conversation. That is not a plan. Shame and guilt can have an effect on people, but often only has a small effect on organizations.
Here’s a start: look at the long-term stock exchange (Eric Ries) and see how it’s doing in trying to align corporate behavior with what meshes better with what people want.