Eji1700

Yeah I'm another who actually likes the rough idea of the aesthetics.

A sedan built by another company with similar aesthetics without completely ignoring...well basically everything from safety to build quality, would probably be on my potential list.

It did sort of identify/lean into something that I think many people don't really want to acknowledge, which is, yes the "truck" has become a status symbol rather than a work vehicle.

Had Musk leaned into it as the "luxury"/GT of trucks (like the H2), there probably would've been less pushback. Granted he's functionally incapable of not just lying about things being the best every and setting stupid impossible goals, but I do think there's outcomes where we see more things "akin" to the cybertruck, leaning into the Pavement Princess market.

Eh while you’re not wrong everyone else doesn’t have crazy P/E ratios and a personality cult as part of its price.

Will be interesting to see how Musk and his companies weather this storm

It's a market thing too. Company A tries to write perfect code. Company B tries to write something that the users don't hate. Company B wins in the vast majority of cases. Especially when company A these days is stuck with a huge space to investigate.

This isn't unique to coding, but coding has been built on it for decades, with the "safety valve" of "who has the time to check all that?". So defcon speakers and intelligence agencies burn time investigating for weak links that might take months to find, and the rest of the world churns on.

Now you have companies throwing thousands or millions in compute at problems just checking EVERY possible problem and yeeeeup, looks like there's a lot of "good enough, ship it" which is now a major problem for all those companies using that tech.

It's still going to be interesting to see how this develops because, yes, there's a lot of code being written by people who haven't even read it (although the amount of enterprise production level code I've seen that's bad stack overflow copy paste makes me less worried about this), and there's maybe better tools and standards to catch these things (why not spin up a test suite if it's an afternoon of AI poking rather hiring a dev and getting them up to speed?).

Zero does mostly "radio" stuff (RFID, subghz, etc). One does mostly "network" stuff (wifi, 5g, etc).

All established companies that have been net positive. Not up and coming tech that's yet to come close.

> "it owes a bunch of people money, so it should be worth more"

"it owes a bunch of people money so the only way for it to not be insolvent is it must be worth X, and if we're talking lower than X this is already a problem"

> If they can do 25% margins,

This is the assumption we disagree on. They're net negative by an order of magnitude on most of their current customers. I don't see them flipping to break even + 25%.

Further you're assuming they can turn that on today, when they're still very clearly not ready. Every year the timeline gets worse.

Take them to 2% margin with 8 years to go and you're looking at needing 4.5t annual.

This is normally where I'd say "but 2% feels extreme..." and hedge in the middle, but like...the current pricing isn't even close to 25% margin, it's not even close to break even.

> But I want them to be valued far more realistically.

They are. That's the problem. The obligations that these companies are, on paper, supposed to meet require these valuations.

If you value Anthropic at $500b that's still a fuckload and vastly less than their obligations and a lot of people are going to say "well wait a minute how am I going to get paid".

The amount of spend going on, and planned, is insane and underpins a lot of this, and is why people are skeptical of the valuations. It has nothing to do with "Wanting" AI to fail and just a reasonable bet based on the math. For them to pay back what they have on their balance sheet entire continents will functionally be a spec in comparison, and that's really really fucking unlikely to happen.

Doubly so when you consider that there's a question of if they can be profitable to projected needed levels without fundamentally breaking some economics parts, and that this looks a lot like the overbuild of the internet during the dotcom bubble, which was also hideously overvalued at the time, for the time frame they were looking at, despite being THE literal world changing tech.

Don’t think they’re suggesting it’s not a big deal.

Any company losing 10 months of revenue overnight is a BIG fucking deal. Doubly so in a speculative asset that you’re holding for others “securely”. The financial hit has only just begun for them.

That said yes the trading volume has huge.

It’s what you’d need to be regulated yeah…

Thats been the fascinating part of crypto is watching society speedrun “best hits of financial crisis from history” by ignoring things we already solved.

Crypto is roughly agreeing that the current password rotation practices kinda suck and agreeing that the new way forward is just to have a single plain text file because you’re sure all that overhead was just nonsense

The vast majority of crypto being held now was purchased by people who had never even heard of Mt Gox.

It’s likely state sponsored and some nation(NK is a common one) just paid for the weapons budget of the next few years

It's such a shame how few things in media have even attempted to carry the torch TNG lit. There's been enough written about how Trek itself wasn't, but I always hope something else takes up the mantle.

Closest i've seen is The Orville which I found best described as McFarlen using his money to pay for his Larping (in a good way), but was pretty much just copy pasting.

It was such a fascinating show and handled issues with a tact and nuance you're lucky to get today.

Curious if this finally pops tether. I kinda doubt it, but to my very mild research on the subject I feel like binance was a big part of the equation. Of course so long as the market exists it'll need a stable, and it's got the inertia, so maybe it just won't matter.

I've always found the best approach to a commercial product for the masses it to belittle them first and only appeal to the enthusiasts...

> I think there is a rise of "this is legal because we used a computer to do it.

This has literally been defining the modern age since the 2000's or earlier. Basically every law that ever existed about targeting ads towards children has been WILDLY ignored (to everyone's profit) because of it.

While i generally agree, some of this tech could be a major force multiplier and lower the barriers to entry.

Even if you have a great game idea, it takes a ton of time and money to even get it off the ground, let alone get it coded correctly and maybe get the reach you want. A LOT of flash in the pan ideas probably fizzled out faster than they needed (most recently Among Us and Fall Guys come to mind) because they were built to ship, not to easily modify.

Tech like this could lower the barrier to smaller and more creative teams or even individuals and get some better competition in the area. Fighting games KNEW that rollback was the way looooooong before AAA bit the bullet and started making it standard, and they still fuck it up (and it probably would've taken longer if COVID didn't force the issue and punish those lagging).

That said 2 of the largest hurdles i've seen in everyone's "magically ideal" game are enemy AI and Plot.

Interesting and well designed enemy AI is still hard, and even games that did it well built the whole game around it (FEAR) and the system is vastly less impressive without that focus (Just Cause). I don't think we're anywhere near modern AI solving the issue of making a good AI system for a game due to design space problems, but it might.

Plot though...that's tricky. Everyone always says how cool it would be for everything to be like Mass Effect or more, with all choices mattering and everything interacting, but someone has to write that. AI is not turning out well though out plot points that don't feel like the equivalent of Bethesda mission creep.

Point of this whole ramble being that in arcadey/simple stuff I think we'll see a lot more great games (and would argue we already were with the growth of the indie scene over the last 15 years thanks to steam and other tools), but there's still going to be entire genres that are just miserable to develop.

To be a bit difficult, depends on the 100 you ask. Yes yes statistical sampling, but I think my point here is more about how generations are trained growing up.

A lot of people dislike change and sure as shit hate relearning a skill they didn't enjoy or have aptitude in the first place. I know exactly what kind of UX my dad prefers and he HATES all modern design patterns. I think several of them are great for information density and despise everything twitter popularized. Entire generations have grown up on twitter and they think it's basically the only way to display information.

Point being when we're discussing as large a surface area as "software" I'm not really sure you're going to get much out of asking 100 people except what decade they were born in and what software/patterns they grew up on. Clearly some things can outcompete others, but inertia and network effects drive adoption, and can turn people from "ugh I hate this" to "ugh why would you do anything other than this".

A biased opinion as I dev in F#, but it strikes me that AI is going to play best with functionally pure languages (strongly typed, no side effects, whatever we call that these days)?

F# is on the softest side of that, but letting the compiler tell the AI "nope, here's why" seems like a huge win in saving cycles and time.

The downside at first was simply, "how many examples of F# are there to learn from", and early on it showed, but I think that's been long overcome.

And F# is obviously NOT the best example since it's both "soft" on functional purity and niche. I imagine something like haskell is probably doing even better, although I've yet to check that at all (not that I can code haskell but I haven't looked at anecdotes or anything).

I realize this doesn't really help anyone who's grown to love python, and there's surely no perfect language, but just like how the web catapulted javascript, I see a future where the answer isn't "use AI to make python better" so much as "what already works super well with AI, and does it ease the user adoption"

> [Edit: note that the above video is "content" so if you're not used to the style it might be offputting but I'm into it]

I hate that it is because it makes me suspicious of every reaction. I happened to see the CD video on the clown wedding on the moon(sodium vapor maybe?) and so I at least have some grounding from this, but if I didn't I'd probably ignore most of this (as i ignored the thumbnail) because "literal industry defining tech" and "random temu mall ninja crap" has basically the same production pattern these days so why trust it?

I realize this is "old man yells at cloud" territory but it sucks that prostrating to the algorithm means all sincerity is lost because you have to ape Mr. Beast or whoever to get "engagement"

Edit-

And with that said, I'd say just jump to 23:40ish when the professional is talking if you're grumpy like me.

I realize this is 100% not the point, but is this an immediately practical breakthrough that will change computing?

My extremely limited understanding is “no” as I sorta assume that would be the headline. The main point being that while a MASSIVE improvement over any previous progress it’s still “small” from a practical standpoint.

This is not to downplay the very well conveyed problem this might be, but I just want to make sure I even got that right.

I do wonder if this will be a major issue for future development or if the math experts in diapers right now will grow up in this world and have tools and understanding to assist and we’re just in a rough transition, but unfortunately that’s about as much as I can contribute.

Eh not really? Sounds nice, but the most important part of government is authority. If i tell my neighbor I will lock him in a room unless they pay their taxes, i'm a fucking lunatic. It is 100% within the governments right however to do so.

You don't have to have the monopoly on violence to be the government, but it's often a defining feature, and where their authority stems from. A bunch of people together is just a community, and has no legal or other form or authority. If one of them decides to start stealing from the others, the appropriate retribution is mostly going to depend on who caught them.

At that point you're closer to libertarian/anarchy which, technically, is a form of government, but often defined by its lack of one. You arguably have small governments all over the world where that's how it works, but there's pretty clean lines when discussing these things.

Hell technically it's not a government unless it's running a state which is where a lot of this stems from.

> It wasn't great, didn't age well, but it gave people a decent place to live.

This is, arguably, the big problem. Things akin to Commie blocks have been tried in non communist countries, but in general government run housing has this major issue of almost always winding up poorly budgeted and supported, so it quickly becomes a nightmare as tax payers don't want to foot the bills on some other persons housing, and it's extra ripe for corruption and corner cutting, and so on.

Not that it shouldn't be investigated (any option should be considered), but it does seem to be one of the big weaknesses. In theory if a private landlord/building owner breaks the law, you have recourse though the legal system (yes in theory), while if the government isn't living up to what it said it would do....well you tend to lack any option for recourse.

To be clear this is a disgustingly simplified summary of a subject I have at best a casual hobbyists knowledge of, but there seems to be an advantage to leaving housing in the realm of private so that you have the option of kicking them in the teeth with the government if they completely fuck up. As messy as that might be, the alternative seems to be messier.

Yeup. People often like to conflate things that aren't directly related. Doesn't mean their observations or experiences aren't valid, but it does also lead to lots of going in circles.

It doesn't help that buildings are likely to be the most expensive thing a person will create or own, and they have a very high impact and demand. You need electricity, water, sewage, access to make it usable, then you need to make sure all of that was done right to make it safe, and then you want to make sure it's not put in a spot that'll just piss people off... and so on.

Obviously we do tend to come up with similar solutions for these systems because I don't think there's some clear and obvious "well just do that" living out there. Yes it's better in communities that are small with lots of space, lots of funds, and like minded members, but the moment everyone wants to live on the beach in the 70-80F weather you're going to start running into lots of issues.

It's unfortunate because people like to imagine it's just "Them" doing it. "Them" being the perfect mental image of an adversary who we all have 100% dealt with. The petty neighbor breaking out technicalities to stop you from getting something you'd like for no better reason than "fuck you". Unfortunately it's hard to design systems with that kind of person in mind, because when you're dealing with 100/1,000/10,000 people, it's a lot harder to just say "you're just being an asshole, no one cares if you're correct, you lose"

They essentially aren't describing a government. It's just a community, and yes, communities tend to suck because once you get over about 10 people you've got enough voices represented that no one anywhere can agree on anything. A majority rule just means you've got 10 people livid and 10 people maybe happy, and you can't even do that in these cases because you lack what a government has, which is authority.

As they pointed out it's hard to get anyone to do their fair share, and unlike a government which can just MAKE you, they have no such option.

1. It shocks me how many people are discussing this as if it will ever even hit private collections but whatever. Whole lot of claims and demos have never made production especially from Tesla.

2. I know fuck all when it comes to real physics but there’s a lot of discussion of this “flying” and some serious napkin math. The demo has this falling, stopping momentum, and landing. Is that demonstration of enough force to produce reliable lift from the ground?

My crap knowledge can come up with arguments either way but I’m leaning towards you can’t possibly have enough force to leave the ground and land safely?

If you have 2.5 seconds of thrust you have 1.25 seconds to use to get off the ground and 1.25 seconds to stop you from absolutely destroying the car as it pounds into the ground in my shit math world, and I feel like there’s no way you could even concept car demo that?

Seconded. The amount of "someone who claims to be on my side has a bad view, must be a bot!" is absurd.

People have been problematic since recorded time, and the whole "well X% of internet traffic is bots!" doesn't mean the % you're interacting with is just that.

99.99% (totally made up for example) of the emails I am probably sent are spam, those are filtered automatically before I even see them by the various email providers, and of the remaining .01% some still slips through.

I feel that there's somewhat of a similar disconnect between "x amount of traffic is bots" and people assuming that means that supposed ally who says horrible things is a bot (...or psyop..or false flag...or etc...)

So AI has made everyone managers. Got it.

> Provenance is hard to track

Right, which is going to open a lot of doors to a lot of questions.

I don't think there's any legal ramifications on this, just ethical ones about when and how you publish research, but it's yet another point in favor of "if provenance is hard to track, should we be using this for things where it needs to be".

Obviously copyright/trademark is a huge discussion on this, and I could absolutely see this devolving into that as well with how certain findings wind up monetized.

We have a response in this topic from someone claiming to be from OpenAI and linking an article where they, roughly, say "we are sure nothing from the 2 month period made its way into the solution". If that is true, that should mean it is provable, but leads to some more open ended questions like "well what data did it use then?". Is this still okay if someone close to the author did plug data into open AI and it extrapolated it?

Obviously that's probably an unreasonable expectation for these models to track and prove, but it also used to be an unreasonable expectation to scrape every single piece of digital and physical info for consolidated data.

If I opine to a friend on a park bench about a story I'm writing, do they get to pull it from the flock feed, shove it in the model, and then provide it to disney?

Legally, right now, probably. But there's going to need to be a serious look at laws and standards. Or a major shift in what is and isn't discussed in public if literally every breath and move you make can become monetized.