johhns4

Do please say when this will work as this could make my workflows a lot easier to visualize and work with.

Wow amazing work! How does the inputs work, are they created for you or does it support custom as well?

Funny, probably have no communication between these departments either, the people hiring them think they are excellent and then the ones firing them don't.

But the problem never gets solved because the hiring people just go "I don't know at all why this person got laid off, looks great on paper! Let's re-hire them."

And me for SQL. I'm really dumb at SQL.

It's not a lot of money they get, it's probably just to survive. Without kids and a career women have a much better life. Women with kids really have to work hard, women knows this by now.

What happens when renters go and shame landlords for getting kicked out for not paying rent and such? Most people leave reviews when they are angry, not when they are satisfied.

Landlords aren't usually liked, accepted perhaps but not liked. Sometimes they have to make tough decisions and this can unfortunately make people angry.

I get it for a hotel, but a landlord isn't getting paid to work with customer service, they simply rent it the place. So, if they can't have the ability to respond about the person slamming them won't that cause issues? It has to be a two-way street, otherwise it will push prices up so they can deal with the additional admin and work around making everyone happy.

They do deserve their privacy as well, most landlords are not a company so publicly slamming their name seems like something that they shouldn't have to deal with. They deserve anonymity. If this happens to a landlord once, they may not rent again.

Now, I'm not against it for situations that are absolutely horrendous but like another commenter pointed out, if they are really that bad you will notice it when you meet them the first time and they show you the property.

But rating people, i.e. landlords, is not the same as rating a company.

There is a difference between having all the facts and intelligence. Most LLMs will repeat what others have already said in a different way.

It's hardly that black and white. If people are burnt out there is a reason for it, blaming them won't make the problem go away.

I've seen this in a few where there is certainly an environmental issue but it's easier to blame the individual. Removing them never helped and it just tears in a lot of places, especially the ones that was held up by the employee itself. Usually the employee is quite clear about these areas as well.

You have to remember that in these cases, the person feeling burnt out is taking on too much to keep the organization going. The issue isn't the person but the expectation and workload. I've seen employees try to make it work so they can have some semblance of work life balance.

With regards to your first comment there, some organizations don't realize the work that they are putting on to one person. I've heard comments like "why don't they just stop caring about the work?" for their own organization. You think founders and managers want people to stop caring about the work? No. They say it to put blame elsewhere and then know that the work will keep going like always. If it stops, they'll get pissed off and argue that the employee isn't doing their job.

It's great that you are looking out for yourself, but people being put in these situations shouldn't get blamed. They literally just care about the work, and usually they do amazingly. Without these people then I don't think most organizations would have gotten as far as they have.

I do agree with you though, that best is to make sure you don't put yourself in this kind of situation.

However, the most talented and driven people do care a lot about the work they do, they put a lot of pride in it. In this case it's important to put guardrails in place and I think many are doing this right now.

If it is a constant issue where dedicated employees feel burnt out, then of course it is his business. I don't think the solution is to find less engaged people to work. It's not just about the employees, it is also about the general work and the value the team will bring. Maybe hiring low effort people will solve the problem, but then again so will no employees at all as well I suppose.

As a manager, you should work towards keeping people engaged, doing good work, while making sure they don't burn out.

If people are on the brink of burn out, it's not a "it's their own fault for caring about their work." It's because they're trying to do their actual jobs and care enough about the results.

I find this trend where we're just blaming people that burn out for caring about the work they do interesting, what's the end result? Just a bunch of people playing politics and laying around waiting for the day to end?

I rather work with someone that cares and does a good job but just needs a break, give them support so they can do their jobs, rather than force them to quit 'because they're a pain in the ass' for giving a shit.

Thanks! The Gemini one doesn't work though. Claude refused my request. Will have to try Mistral as well.

However, you are forgetting one thing most people who are productive may not be loud enough to show that they are productive. It's not until they leave that you understand the work they have done.

This becomes even harder if it is top level down that makes the decisions, maybe cutting the manager at the same time. Here, it's impossible to know which has potential, who is running the show and who is doing very little.

We saw this with Twitter, when Elon Musk cut across the entire company and then had to beg people to come back because they realized this after the fact.

In most cases you'd be too stubborn to ask people to come back as it would look bad on you as a leader.

You can do more with less. The more you introduce the more complicated it will be. Every person will introduce a new dynamic. Focus on creating small, strong and resistant teams instead.

How are you going to identify the ones that are productive though through a layoff? If you just do a general cut across the board based on 'opinions' how do you know that the ones that are left are the useful ones that will keep you lean?

And then it's the fact that most who see productive people being slashed will ultimately reach the conclusion that productivity isn't the most important but being loud enough is.

Feels like a fine line. But yes, if these companies were bloated then something needed to be done. I'm just curious if "departing with very talented people" is the way to go.

I think you made the point for him, "the entire game falls apart if you let [AI] play by the same rules as a human."

If anyone is experiencing the same

Here it's good to point out that most of what is published is published within a platform that owns that content.

Say you post a blog post on medium, or you write something on a subreddit. Who owns that content? The corporations? Reddit can sell this content if they wanted to and they do.

If someone grabs this content without the platform's explicit permission it is copyright infringement. But to what end? The user? Do you think the corporation is thinking about the user when it argues for copyright infringement? It's about money.

Now, we can go further with this and argue that copyright infringement can also hurt smaller businesses.

Let's say the platforms start making deals with certain corporations so they can get ahold of this content. Maybe as training datasets. Maybe they already do. Now only bigger corporations with money and contacts will get access to this content and less smaller open-source projects will have the same resources to build models of the same caliber. Now it's hurting the competitive economy.

Yes, an individual should be allowed to own their own content but if they freely post something on a blog or a forum, that is owned by someone else, they have already given their content away. And whether they like it or not it is being sold for monetary gain.

That these corporations use the idea of copyright infringement as a way to bar everyone from this data without paying them is not about what is right, it is about money. It's a strategy.

Oh god, when I build a dataset I manually go a lot of it to make sure it is in good shape. I will go through thousands of rows of data otherwise I don't get the result I need.

Think of people going through all of these private conversations they've had in ChatGPT. I mean we know that it isn't fully private but it can still be a bit delicate. Hopefully they anonymize it at least.

What exactly did they do? Just transform data or generate completely new data for training? I've seen plenty of people that have used GPT-4 to help transform data, i.e. using GPT-4 to generate summaries of texts and then using that to train smaller models. Not sure why this wouldn't be allowed, as it's not technically data that is coming from GPT-4.

If they don't allow this it just seems like they are trying to prevent people from building smaller cheaper models that will perform better for a specific use case and gobbling up the market for as long as they can.

I also just signed as soon as I knew what they were after. I just asked how much I was getting. No need to put yourself through this. I was a high performer and had been juggling up to 4 jobs by that time and was about to go on my first vacation after 14 months. They said "I looked a bit tired."

Obviously my vacation became an extended vacation instead.

I got a text a few months afterwards where they asked how I had made it look so easy. I'm still perplexed by the whole ordeal. But it was probably for the best anyways.

Looks like replicate is perfect. Will look into it. Thanks!

I will back up here a bit as my first claim came off as a bit confrontational. However, I find it a bit unrealistic to expect an environment where you have founders that are very compassionate and calm. The very nature of building a business is a maddening task. Which is something we seem to forget.

Most level-headed people would never do it. The very idea of starting something that has a very minimal chance of success isn’t rational. Therefore I do find the traits you describe at somewhat of a contradiction.

Many of the most known innovators and leaders are often described as intense, driven, and even obsessive. Their willingness to defy convention, take significant risks and challenge the status-quo can be seen as crazy.

I suppose I’ve seen the other side of this coin, in small companies where everything is ”too much of a risk” if it cannot generate a good cash flow within a few months. This is a very level-headed approach. I’ve also seen them miss some great opportunities because of it. Nevertheless, they are still operating and probably will be for a long time. However, I'm uncertain that they have enough energy and will power to "change" the world.

Now, I'm not saying that a small company with calm level-headed leaders are a bad thing. But I don’t believe that there aren’t trade-offs. Both have their pros and cons.

I don't know. Just because a company doesn't move fast doesn't mean that they are a good company to work for. Calm and compassionate can just mean out of touch and dispassionate in investing in the future. Having energy and passion to move forward as well as the ability to place your bets somewhere is important too. When nothing ever happens because everything is too much of a risk, work can get a bit tedious. But I suppose in todays climate people will look towards these companies as the holy grail just to get some stability.

Yes. But this is because we have organizations where people survive by placating the higher-ups instead of producing value to the product and their team. Hence, these people survive.

It's human nature to find the best way to survive so we can't really blame these PMs for doing what they need to keep their job. Suck up to the people that will ultimately give them their paycheck.

The issue isn't the PM or shitty employees that aren't producing actual value, the issue is with the ego of the higher ups that rather keep people that agree with them on all things than have people who will constantly challenge them.

I have seen many CxOs (that aren't founders) who are very good at befriending the founders and thus they are more prone to survive. They are not necessarily doing anything useful to move the needle though, so this gives people the impression that the best thing you can do to survive is just be liked by the higher ups. Telling founders that they are wrong on a day to day basis because you work so closely with users and the engineering team, is not a good way to keep your job. If you are very smart maybe you can navigate this in a way that works, for awhile.

If my point is muddled, I'm saying that if you have a shitty PM it's because of the organization that employs people and keeps people based on the wrong criteria. Good leaders aren't threatened by getting challenged or feel the need to constantly get their egos validated.

Or maybe I'm wrong there too and it's just human nature to want to keep people that you always get along with.

Okay interesting! So how did you build it?

so what's your go to for content that isn't crap?