> I don’t understand why we are getting these software products that want to have vendor lock in when the underlying system isn’t being improved.
I think it's clear now that the pace of model improvements is asymptotic (or at least it's reached a local maxima) and the model itself provides no moat. (Every few weeks last year, the perception of "the best model" changed, based on basically nothing other than random vibes and hearsay.)
As a result, the labs are starting to focus on vertical integration (that is, building up the product stack) to deepen their moat.
> I think it's clear now that the pace of model improvements is asymptotic
As much as I wish it were, I don't think this is clear at all... it's only been a couple months since Opus 4.5, after all, which many developers state was a major change compared to previous models.
The models are definitely continuing to improve; it's more of a question of whether we're reaching diminishing returns. It might make sense to spend $X billion to train a new model that's 100% better, but it makes much less sense to spend $X0 billion to train a new model that's 10% better. (Numbers all made up, obviously.)
Ardent AI | Product Engineer | REMOTE (US) | Full time | $180-200K, 0.5-1.0% equity
Ardent [0] is a well-funded, early-stage startup founded by an ex-Stripe engineer and three-time founder. We're building a platform which helps users blend the creativity of generative AI with the determinism of executable code.
We've raised ~$2.5M to date, and we're hiring another engineer to join the team. We're looking for highly motivated and talented candidates with experience working on a fully remote team, a strong interest in artificial intelligence, and alignment with our principles and way of working. [1]
Our interview process is efficient, and we don't do Leetcode or grueling all-day interview loops. We won't waste your time, we will stay in constant contact throughout, and we will get you an answer quickly.
Please note — You must be be a resident of, and eligible to work in, the United States. We are not currently sponsoring visas. This is a full-time, direct-hire position, and we are not interested in working with agencies or consultancies.
You're over-rotating on security. Not that it isn't important, but there are other dimensions to software that benefit heavily from the author having a deep understanding of the code that's being created.
You keep commenting to cite this statute when you clearly have not actually read what it says. Peaceful protest is explicitly protected by the first amendment.
The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.
Intimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
Blocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.
I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. Given the wild differences between video evidence and what the top levels of the administration claim happen, I think a healthy degree of scepticism is warrented.
Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.
The point is to establish that the protest has not been entirely peaceful, which raises the possibility of conspiracy covering non-protected actions. The subthread is about what they plan to charge people with, not about exactly what actually happened and whether it meets legal standards. That's what investigations and trials are for.
Some of these are still in existence. For example, Wealthfront Cash is their HYSA offering, which is still very much a thing: https://www.wealthfront.com/cash
Roe v. Wade isn't gone because of the will of the people. Nobody voted to overturn it. It's gone because of a unique scenario involving the balance of power in the SCOTUS.
Congressional Republicans simply refused to confirm a legally appointed justice, allowing a conservative justice to be appointed in their place after the next POTUS was elected. Then, another liberal justice passed away creating another vacancy which was again filled by a conservative. If either or both of those things hadn't happened, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned.
And sure, you can say it was the will of the people that a conservative was in office at the time, and appointed the justices, but that's not the same as voting for or against federal abortion rights.
Appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade was a focal point in the 2016 election. Dangling that possibility was the entire point of the confirmation shenanigans.
Yeah, I'm conflicted about the use of AI for creative endeavors as much as anyone, but Google is an advertising company. It was acceptable for them to build a massive empire around mining private information for the purposes of advertisement, but generative AI is now somehow beyond the pale? People can change their mind, but Rob crashing out about AI now feels awfully revisionist.
(NB: I am currently working in AI, and have previously worked in adtech. I'm not claiming to be above the fray in any way.)
He sure was happy enough to work for them (when he could work anywhere else) for nearly two decades. A one line apology doesn't delete his time at Google. The rant also seems to be directed mostly if not exclusively towards GenAI not Google. He even seems happy enough to use Gmail when he doesn't have to.
You can have an opinion and other people are allowed to have one about you. Goes both ways.
No one is saying he can’t have an opinion, just that there isn’t much value in it given he made a bunch of money from essentially the same thing. If he made a reasoned argument or even expressed that he now realizes the error of his own ways those would be worth engaging with.
He literally apologized for any part he had in it. This just makes me realize you didn’t actually read the post and I shouldn’t engage with the first part of your argument.
Apologies are free. Did he donate even one or two percent of the surely exorbitant salary he made at Google all those years to any cause countering those negative externalities? (I'm genuinely curious)
He apologized for the part he had in enabling AI (which he describes as minor) but not that he spent a good portion of his life profiting from the same datacenters he is decrying now.
It’s certainly possible to see genAI as a step beyond adtech as a waste of resources built on an unethical foundation of misuse of data. Just because you’re okay with lumping them together doesn’t mean Rob has to.
Yeah, of course, he's entitled to his opinion. To me, it just feels slightly disingenuous considering what Google's core business has always been (and still is).
Google's official mission was "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", not to maximize advertising sales.
Obviously now it is mostly the latter and minimally the former. What capitalism giveth, it taketh away.
(Or: Capitalism without good market design that causes multiple competitors in every market doesn't work.)
reply