enumjorge

For years, Reddit has given 3rd parties access to their APIs. Two uses of said APIs that are relevant to what’s going on are third-party mobile apps like Apollo (which has built a large user base) and tools that help mods moderate their subreddits. Reddit recently announced they will be charging very high fees for access starting July 1st.

The fees are so high that the developer behind Apollo said his bill would be $20M per month. As a result he announced he’d be shutting down the app. Many users are upset because they feel that these third-party apps provide a much better user experience than the official web and mobile apps.

There’s also some bad blood because at one point the dev behind Apollo was in negotiations with Reddit that went sour. Reddit CEO accused him of trying to extort the company, but Apollos dev released the recording of a conversation he had with the CEO where the CEO admitted the extortion had been a misunderstanding.

As for the mods, they will lose access to tools that make moderation easier. Mainly because of this, but also due to the Drama with third-party apps as a form of protest, several sub Reddit’s, some of which are among the largest communities on the site, decided to go private.

Those are the general highlights. Someone can jump in in case I missed anything.

What subreddit is that?

Interesting concept but I’d prefer it to be more selective on what counts as a high-paying job. The bottom range is for a lot of these posts. I wouldn’t consider high-paying, when you take into account the number of years of experience they require. Tesla’s ranges are so wide that they provide very little information on what you can expect. The most egregious post had a range of 82 about $150,000 asking for 8+ years of experience.

This is what I'm talking about though. The fact that you're quoting Orwell suggests that you're having an emotional response to this topic, not a logical one. We're not talking about the human mind here. ChatGPT is not a simulation of human thought. At it's core it's statistics telling you what the answer to your question ought to look like. You're applying an observation about apples to oranges.

Do you have any sources for that?

How would making ChatGPT less likely to return a racist answer or hate speech affect its ability to return code? After a question has been classified into a coding problem, presumably ChatGPT servers could now continue to solve the problem as usual.

Maybe running ChatGPT is really expensive, and they nerfed in order to reign in costs. That would explain why the answers we get are less useful, across-the-board.

That may not be the reason after all, but my point is that it’s really hard to tell from the outside. There’s this narrative out there that “woke-ism” is ruining everything in tech, and I feel like some people here are being a little too eager to superimpose that narrative when we don’t really have insight into what openAI is doing.

I know this course is meant to be content marketing for your company, and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense--you're doing content marketing right by providing high quality information to an audience who could be interested in your services--but it's a bit odd that going to https://llm.university unceremoniously drops me in the middle of what looks to be your product's documentation. That's not wrong necessarily, but it all adds up to arriving at a site and having a feeling of "what am I looking at?".

Like the grandparent comment mentioned, the pitch is "visual, intuitive explanations", but I don't see that on the landing page. I'm looking for a way to get to the start of your content, but the top and left hand menus don't help and are, if anything, confusing until I realize that I'm now inside of a larger set of documentation unrelated to the course.

Below the fold we see a "Let's get started!", but the link I see, Structure of the Course" doesn't sound like getting started. It sounds like more front matter. From the nav menu I see that after that I still won't get to the content, but instead a page about the instructors. Do I really need to read blurbs of the instructors before I get to the meat of the course?

It just feels like too much wrapping paper and packaging to get to the good stuff--and it really does seem like good stuff! And I think the way that you've embedded this course into the rest of your documentation prevents you from presenting it in a structure that is more familiar and easy to navigate (e.g. an 'About' link at the top that talks about the instructors and Cohere).

It might be frustrating to put a lot of time and effort into high quality materials, only for people to not want to spend a few minutes looking around, but from the audience perspective, there's a sea of LLM-related content out there. I want to quickly determine if this is worth adding to my already-too-long list of LLM related bookmarks of things I want to read.

> i don't have to worry about being insecure with what I am talking about as it's just an AI

I’d be uncomfortable if there were a digital transcript of my conversations with my therapist stored in some company’s servers, but I get that talking to a machine would be easier than a person for some people/topics.

Elon’s circle is lousy with people begging to be that sacrificial lamb.

This is such a Hackernews comment.

> The idea that a company can keep removing something consumers want to pay for, but they won't notice, just doesn't exist in the real world.

Have you heard of shrinkflation?

If I had to hazard a guess this might be a cost-cutting measure on Stripe's part similar to cuts on content marketing that other companies have done. DigitalOcean divested from CSS Tricks [0], and there was an article earlier today about Amazon shutting down DPReviews [1]. Maybe the Stripe founders gave the IndieHackers folks a chance to spin it off again as opposed to shutting down.

[0] https://geoffgraham.me/goodbye-css-tricks/

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35455797

> the getting taken advantage of

I’ve been thinking of starting my own business and I hadn’t heard of this before. It sounds draining. If you’re comfortable, would you mind sharing an example of how people try to take advantage of you?

I'm not very deep in the raspberry PI world, mostly because it's been hard getting a hold of one. Are there alternatives that the community has gravitated towards?

Google search's ads were not subtle in the beginning. Similarly, Youtube ads were shorter and easier to skip at first. Amazon also had very subtle ads in their marketplace search results for a while. I don't see them identify results as ads at the moment, but I don't know if that's because they don't include them anymore.

It seems like there's a trend in tech giants creating unobtrusive ads when a product is growing, but then adopting dark patterns once they have captured a sizeable market.

How do you know when to edit something gloriously wrong if you don’t proofread them?

> We do not know what the end goal of the person was but we confronted the person and closed the pull requests.

Maybe this was a naïve attempt at inflating their GitHub numbers? Some people use those as a credibility measure when applying to jobs or getting clients.

Can you share examples of this? I've been doing some searching on my own because I find this stuff interesting, and I haven't seen evidence that current versions of AI tools are capable of helping generate entire apps in minutes, at least non-trivial ones.

I keep seeing some real dramatic premonitions about AI, and I'd love to see something to back them up.

Even the original post, I'm having trouble understanding. I know Stable Diffusion can create some amazing images, but I don't see how it's being used to create sprite assets for games. You typically need the same character from different angles. Can Midjourney v5 do that? The OP talks about being a 3D artist. Can Midjourney generate meshes and 3D objects or just raster images? I didn't think we were at the point where these tools could fully replace an artist's workflow, but the OP seems to claim so.

If Bitcoin had a history of stability your point would have more weight, but as it stands I don’t know how people can present it as a viable alternative with a straight face. Banks are having a crisis—-Bitcoin seems to have at least one every year.

> The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB.

I don’t understand this comment. The article doesn’t pretend to not be an attack on people like Thiel. It’s in the title. So what’s your point—is Thiel above criticism?

And since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left, here’s a Financial Times opinion piece with a similar premise: https://archive.is/6MBEL

> maximizing diversity to its limits is beneficial to corporations

That’s a straw man argument. Diversity efforts are not about maximizing “to its limits”.

And most research about business come from the same prestigious business schools. Unless you think all research coming them are suspect, I don’t really understand your point.

But given the choice, why would a company invest in VR headsets as a way to collaborate remotely if the company selling them thinks in-person is better?

Meta was supposed to be building a new machine since the old one’s usage stopped growing

According to Wikipedia Tesla was incorporated in 2003. A few months later Musk invested a large sum in the company but didn’t join the company until a year after the company was founded and started as CTO. Saying he joined a few months after the company was founded feels like a stretch.

Twitter had issues early on, but before Musk bought them they definitely did not have outages half the time.

I read this less as ignoring a problem, and more like empowering people at lower levels of an organization to do the right thing, a check-and-balances of sorts.

I’d be more willing to subscribe if publications didn’t pull the dark pattern of making signing up fast and easy, but then requiring a call to a rep to cancel.

I used to subscribe to the nytimes but a few years ago I needed a break from news. My plan was to come back in 6-12 months, but they made me wait on the phone for 25 mins for something that should have taken a couple of minutes on their site. I cancelled and never went back.

Do you have examples of institutions that do this? A Google search only returned subscriptions to access research papers but not books or periodicals.

I think you’re conflating two different things: universities selecting and presenting a syllabus needed to earn a certain degree, and students actually learning the material.

The latter is the solely the responsibility of each student, but I don’t understand why the former would be. Some of the content in this course strikes me as unknown unknowns for new programmers. Why would they be to blame if no one told them to learn a particular skill?

It’s more than web.dev simply being owned by Google, at times the site feels like content marketing for Chrome and not just a resource to learn about web development. I’ve seen them post multiple articles about the latest Chrome-only updates, while I’ve never seen MDN promote content that only focuses on Firefox. Not to say MDN has never done that, but at least to me, web.dev has a definite Chrome bent that you wouldn’t expect from the way the site initially presents itself.

> Mission succeeded, I suppose.

Looks like it did although I really wish we didn't reward these type of brazen stunts to get attention. Outrage-baiting is still very effective I guess.

I’d assume the parent comment is more interested in the in-person interaction than the content of small talk.