371–380 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think their response has been pretty clear so far. They don't have a plan. https://bard.google.com/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/tech/geoffrey-hinton-leaves-g... https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/13/google_lamda_sentient... https://www.wired.com/story/google-timnit-gebru-ai-what-real...
As you wrote this, they announced PaLM 2.
I find it interesting the sentiment in the comments... Yesterday we had an Apple post where everyone was losing their minds all day about Final Cut Pro on iPad (which in my opinion as a Software Engineer is the most boring thing I’ve had to read all week). Today we have probably a massive lineup of a bunch of new AI features to be announced for products most of us use on the regular, or could use as devs, and 90% of…
I am slowly feeling like I should move on from HN. I used to find comments much more mature in the past and learned a lot. Lately I predict the general trend I'll see in the comments before even opening the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woz and Jobs started out building Blue Boxes ( https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/blue-box-designed-an... ) They then created Apple as a hobbyist outfit in a garage, soldering chips together so they could demo a DIY computer programmed in Assembler at a computer club. As opposed to what, a company that exists to sell the equivalent of billboard ads on the Internet? Out of Big Tech, Apple has the strongest claim…
And when Jobs got the contract from Atari, he lied to Woz about how much it paid so he could take the lion's share. Fraud culture is unfortunately part of their blood too, something we ought to excise if we want the tech industry to be taken seriously in the long-run.
How should one test for ethics? A reference check comes to mind, but it is not a test that you can apply fairly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it still a startup after a decade? Isn’t it just a company at that point.
Related: It drives me bananas when a mega-corp makes a small R&D team and the job req says “we are a small startup in a big company.” The benefits, bureaucracy, speed of innovation, and equity all fit the usual mega corporate shoes, so it’s probably still a traditional role.
But the only reason why it worked out the way it did is because the "owner" of the team in question 1) sincerely believed in this approach, 2) had enough clout with the top management to make it stick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IRL you'll lose the little fuckers, they'll be in the way for any devices without missing hardware (and get lost when you remove them for that device) 1. I plug dongle into car aux for my iPhone 12 mini to use. 2. Next day, girlfriend wants to play her own music from her iPhone 6, I say to plug the Lightning in. 3. Dongle doesn't work with iPhone 6 despite being same connector -_- She takes it off to plug into the…
Yeah, I lost my first one like a week in when it fell into the (automatic—I'm not cool, I don't drive a manual) shifter . It was so small it managed to fit into the little gap in the rubber guard around it. Lost forever, or at least until someone tears apart the center console of that car for some reason. Only time I've managed to lose something that particular way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has. Also, it's only a matter of time before their top employee's are poached by Apple and Google.
>but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has I really doubt that. If Google had anything that could seriously compete with GPT-4 they would be shouting about it from the mountains. Not publishing a comparison where they only include GPT-4 in the two benchmarks that they win.
If that is really the best that Google can do after working for several months on one-upping GPT-4, that's just sad, and doesn't bode well for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems quite the opposite: HN biases towards anti-Apple, often for bizarre reasons that require lots of mental gymnastics to justify. You don’t really have to buy AirPods, there are lots of products out in the market that compete in that space. Just because Apple provides a certain product doesn’t mean you are being forced to buy it.
No one is forced to buy Airpods, but the first class integration that the product gets which others can't gives it a competitive advantage. This is besides the power to push the product through different channels to customers of iPhones, iPads etc. Another example is, no one is forced to buy Apple Music, but for sure it pops up front and center when you buy a iOS device or Mac. In fact, even when I keep removing the…
I like my Apple products but this services thing is truly destroying a lot of the good experiences they can provide.
So funny to see google stressing EVERYTIME that they have been using AI for years. Dude, you were seated in the pot of gold and let your organizational disfuncionality block you from really using that. And now you come trying to get the crown of AI? Catch up and them we can talk.
OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has. Also, it's only a matter of time before their top employee's are poached by Apple and Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN tends to bias towards pro Apple. You would see people doing mental gymnastics trying to defend their closed anti competitive practices, disregard for standards. I would cheer a Sennheiser/Bose more than any version of Airpods, I would rather not have a multi trillion dollar company gobble up other industries through unfair advantages. Seeing a hacker crowd do this is just beyond bizzare.
Hacker crowds like to see underdogs win. Apple was the ultimate underdog for most of its existence, and was "doomed" every year up until around 2013. There's no mental gymnastics involved, no upstanding hacker respects "standards" unless they're better for the user (often they're not). It is a matter of taste and preference. Remember, Microsoft also was for a LONG time an attractor of hackers, until the early-mid 90s…
Apple is a 2.73 trillion dollar company, and single-handedly makes up 13.3% of the entire S&P 500 index. The iPod was launched 22 years ago. Apple hasn't been remotely an "underdog" for over a generation now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, yours and other comments here disparaging I/O as "business" or "corporate" talk these days come across as quite ignorant - and I don't mean this in a nasty way, more in a literal way. It seems perhaps you're missing the fact there are many different styles of talks for many audiences. At every I/O there is a "keynote" and a "developer keynote", and similarly there are business / product talks and developer-focus…
Really disappointed that most replies to this comment are just people attacking the person.