Why do that? If they did any investigation into the accessibility options whatsoever then they wouldn't be able to treat us to Kanye style analysis.
3,043 karma · joined April 5, 2018
"right angled corners again"
I have a feeling you aren't and haven't been a Mac user for a long time. When was the last time Macs had right angled corners!? 30+ years ago?
If we look at Q3 and Q4 sales, I bet it shows Apple increasing its share of phones shipped.
Comparing one company’s share in a quarter where they launch new devices to another company’s share when that company launched no new devices is, frankly, stupid.
The killing of the fishermen (which appeared to be potentially NK soldiers) was the cause of the failure and not the covering up of a failure.
In fairness to your point, "fastest growing consumer product ever" isn't well defined per se. If a consumer product gets 1 sign up and then 1e-32 seconds later it gets a second, maybe THAT'S the "fastest growing ever".
> On the other hand, OpenAI’s ChatGPT has more intense pressure from competitors, isn’t making any money, and costs are still rising for its operation.
This isn't the first time someone has suggested that the social media space is low competition but I always think it's completely incorrect. Threads competes with IG, FB, WA, Snap, TikTok, Bluesky, X and many more. All are well funded and most have comparable or greater DAU.
In terms of making money, Threads only recently began to show ads at all. During this time, Threads has also been cannibalizing IG engagement. It's quite UNLIKELY that IG is making very much money and even less likely that on the whole has been a positive revenue tailwind for Meta even with the actual revenue they are starting to book. Meanwhile ChatGPT, which apparently isn't making any money, has a revenue run rate of ~$12B.
> I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that it’s the “fastest growing consumer product ever” and “revenues are like super exponential” as it’s demonstrated repeatedly that OpenAI has yet to turn a profit or even meaningfully dent their burn rate
Revenue != profit. Their revenue is growing unbelievably fast. Their user base has and is still growing extremely fast. Current revenue run rate ~$12B which is >3X 2024 total revenue. That is enormously fast especially at that already sizeable ~$4B base!
That their losses are so large is in large part a choice as they provide a huge amount of inference for free today. The same argument you're making about losses is the same tired one people made about FB, Uber, Amazon and plenty of other high growth companies all of which are highly profitable today.
Anyone sitting around arguing that LLMs are a low-demand product that "hardly anyone wants" is one or more of an idiot, willfully ignorant, highly misinformed by a trusted source or actively spreading bollocks.
Meanwhile, in reality, ChatGPT is the fastest growing consumer product ever and LLM provider revenues are like superexponential.
Here you will have what appears per this article to be 2 but as I looked more into it, there are 3 (!!) CTOs (see here: https://x.com/snsf/status/1962939368085327923) one of which (B2B CTO) seems to be reporting to the COO.
So in this context, you have 3 (!!) engineering organizations that don't terminate in a single engineering leader. "Apps" terminates at the "Apps" CEO (Fidji), research org terminates (??) at Sama (Overall CEO) and then B2B terminates at the COO.
So either you have weird dotted lines to Brockman for each of these CTOs OR you are going to have a lot of internal customer relationships which don't have a final point of escalation. That's definitely not common at this size and, unless these are all extremely independent organizations from a tech stack perspective (they can't really be since surely they are all reliant on the core LLMs...), then there will be a lot more weird politics that are harder to resolve than having these organizations all under one technical leader.
Of course another alternative is OAI is handing out titles for retention purposes and "CTO" will be heavily devalued as a title internally.
Is Brockman now CTO over research specifically or is there going to be a weird dotted line?
Do you export all of your moral reasoning to whatever the popular opinion is?
Public figures don't have personal security because it's _hard_ to find them. They have personal security because it's _easy_ to find them.
I think just about literally anyone can go up to someone on the street, shoot them while they're defenseless and then get caught within 5 days.
Also, I can help you on your moral waffling: what he did was fundamentally wrong.
Still something distasteful about it but not quite as vampiric
I would bet up to $5k through any trusted intermediary at even odds that this story is false.
An analogy would be "humans don't have native tool calling abilities, all they can do is press physical keys that represent a function call". I too don't have the ability to natively control a computer in the same sense that the LLM doesn't. If the keyboard to a computer is disconnected then I too will just emit keypresses into the void much like an LLM will emit tool call tokens into a void where they are not linked to an MCP like interface.
This terrifies me. This whole time I was writing bash commands into my terminal, I thought I knew how to use the tools. Now, I’ve just learned that I had no idea how to use tools at all! I just knew how to write text that /represented/ tool use.
That's a really deranged way to approach interacting with people! It does, however, explain a lot about how you post: you're basically arguing with your internal constructions of how people on Hacker News are and not at all with what they say. Your posts, this one quite specifically, are just you disagreeing with your internal construction of posters:
> Well, I'm not really considering you as a person, any more than you could so consider me, we never having met
I do consider you a person, though! That's just a really weird thing you have decided on and it doesn't extend to everyone else.
> For the same reason, I predict your next effort would have been to claim I have no stronger basis to speak on the topic than do you, and demand I distill the experience of ten years and something like a hundred thousand exposures into a tidy, ChatGPT-compatible bullet list which you can then performatively evaluate and find wanting. Oh, you won't do that now, of course. But you thought about it two paragraphs ago.
I wasn't considering doing that at all! I don't care about challenging your photography knowledge. I don't know anything about it other than you claim to have a lot and I only got that because you made sure to tell me.
> It's rare to see someone claim at once that two other people, strangers all, are both lying.
I never claimed anyone was lying! I claimed, based on your reply implicitly asserting we had already conversed, the logical conclusion that you would have to be the other poster and were using an alt. Why else would someone explain to me what they have already said without having ever said it to me? Now you've explained that: you don't talk to people; you talk to ideas of people that you have internally constructed. That's not typical.
> You having spoken as if from great and very confident knowledge of so complex and nuanced a topic, I suppose it seemed reasonable also to expect at least passing familiarity with the actual conversations among which you were doing so.
I responded to one specific leap of theory of mind! It's actually a really narrow and simple topic: can someone infer from the blogpost that the boys were grimacing because the photographer was fiddling with a camera instead of fiddling with an iPhone. The answer, of course, is you can't with the knowledge presented.
> I do have this regrettable habit of assuming people intend to contribute to a discussion when they choose to participate in it, but I realize you're not alone in appearing to have other reasons.
I did contribute! I even went so far as to watch a large portion of the video you claimed showed that the stated theory of mind could be seen in action. I then wrote that the video doesn't show that at all. That's a contribution and a constructive one!
> That's why I said it doesn't surprise me no one in any of these samples wears a genuine smile.
So I ask again, why are you explaining "why <you> said it doesn't surprise <you>..." when I've never interacted with you before that reply of yours and you didn't say that prior to this explanation in that post?
I guess that may just be your style of communicating, though? Like you're explaining what you said to yourself? In your post you it seems you were speaking to yourself for a lot of it - posing questions for yourself to answer, eg.