(1) Make the best possible AI scraper (2) Prove that crypto tokens are viable and better alternative to traditional company structures"
For everyone watching this is the opposite of pragmatism. This is idealism. Your company will succeed or fail based on your ability to execute on your primary mission. Here it should be (1). If you're labouring under a (2) then you have an idealistic company, which is fine, but don't pretend that (1) is your primary mission.
Innovation in compensation is great, but this feels like a "I want to play with crypto" move rather than a mature revision of an inequitable existing model. Options that don't expire are a huge incentive! Offer that. 10% is a huge incentive! Offer that.
If you know you're turning off smart candidates with crypto shenanigans it's a good sign that this is not a mature or pragmatic team.
At temperature zero, if you're using the same API/model, this really should not be the case. None of the big players update their APIs without some name / version change.
Agreed, "I use Cline as my AI coding assistant" would be preferable, eventually morphing into just "I use Cline as my assistant." No need to mention "AI" once it becomes common in the same way as we don't say "I use vim as my software editor" or "I use VScode as my computer code editor".
Unlike neural networks the brain contains massive numbers of lateral connections. This, combined with topographical organization, allows it to do within layer temporal predictions as activations travel across the visual field, create active competition between similarly tuned neurons in a layer (forming natural sub networks), and quite a bit more. So, yeah, the brain's organisation serves it's function, and it does so very very well.
While this is interesting it would be more trustworthy if, when you clicked a name, it showed you evidence for why the site thinks they are inactive. A founder quote, a date, a news story, something. Right now, aside from the title, it's no different from a list of active YC companies.
The idea that creators are being impacted negatively is purposefully dishonest.
- It suggests that what youtube cares about is creators and not their own profit margin, which is false
- It suggests that adblock users should be the ones to change their behavior, where Google could immediately simply pay the creators more for a much larger impact
- It ignores the plain facts of youtubes consistently increasing revenue.(1)
Companies should be held to a basic level of honest communication that this fails to meet.
FWIW Altman sees it as a way to deploy AGI. He's increasingly comfortable with the idea they have achieved AGI and are moving toward Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI).
"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product. You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.
I disagree with the author based on timelines and VC behaviour. There is sufficient time to create a product and raise massive capital before the next massive breakthrough hands the value back to OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/MS. Secondly the execution of a solution in a vertical is sufficiently differentiating that even if the underlying problem could be solved by a next gen model there's very little reason to believe it will be. Big Cos don't have the interest to attack niches while there are billion user markets to go after. So don't build "photo share with AI", build "plant fungus photo share for farmers".
Context is important but it takes about two weeks to build a context collection bot and integrate it into slack. The hard part is not technical, AIs can rapidly build a company specific and continually updated knowledge base, it's political. Getting a drug company to let you tap slack and email and docs etc is dauntingly difficult.
Good lord. I don't care if Silicon Valley was wrapped up in 2019. They need to make another episode which is nothing but a reenactment of this blog post.
Yeah this naming is questionable. This definitely introduces confusion in the minds of consumers but I'm not sure if it's actionable. Any lawyers want to give some "I am not your lawyer" opinions?
The use of "Internet" in the title and article is deceptive. They did not send data over the Internet, they sent conventional optical data over a 30 mile spool of fiber and quantum entangled photons on an unused wavelength over the same cable in a laboratory setting.
Thanks for the excellent article. It's hard to find these step by step architecture evolution retrospectives. A great reference for other startups going though a similar journey!
I'd really like to see the math on this. GPUs are heavy and the required radiators would be moreso. Free power is great but without hard numbers I have a hard time believing this gets to break even quickly.
I was nodding along happily until I watched the composition is better than inheritance linked video and it suggested the abomination of passing a "base" class instance to the save method of a more specific class instance to give the specific class access to functionality on the "base" class. There may be a solid argument for composition over inheritance but this bastardization of functional and OO programming ain't it.