jstummbillig

> When Anthropic released "claude design" people were telling that figma is dead now, but in fact claude design didn't move forward and stayed as a "fallback tool" when you quickly need to check / edit something.

I don't think there is a reasonable expectation that these new tools will simply end Google Workspace. Google are going to be just fine to do whatever they want with their stuff, and they have the customers.

Anthropic can just do this for a new generation of people and businesses, and establish themselves here over time.

Yes, that seems very arbitrary to me, while one is not willing to also forgo most other amenities of modern live.

No, you did not comment on it. That is why I asked. Thanks for the clarification!

But do from anecdotal evidence without benchmarks?

Why is it "concerning"? Personally, I get a lot of stuff done on the $200/month subs. +$100/day per employee seems like a fairly significant amount of money and if a lot of companies do that (even a lot less than that) that seems entirely fine for frontier labs, given all the other uses as well.

That is not to say that you can't spend a lot more. And I would be surprised if Apple did not allow for that too. Note that the text says "for some of its own engineers", which could amount to a total nothing-burger, given the overall vagueness.

Everything about that sounds like Google got it figured out for themselves.

Well, the circle around "wrapper company" is quickly expanding.

> As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Not sure why you would. It seems like the people who made these compromises were roughly right and the problem only escalated when it also came with a solution.

Ah yes, that I can totally see happening.

That seems both entirely obvious in hindsight and potentially super important.

I'll chalk up never even having thought of this being an option as yet another instance my human hubris, and a warning sign.

I doubt that's going to happen.

1) Permitting is slow and, at some point, if you fuck it up big enough, the inspectors will probably take further steps, but otherwise not care much. You simply won't get a permit.

2) Who will care a lot are the builders and creditors. Building is expensive and if there's a couple of months of set back because of your fantasy drawings, that's not going to be in your favor.

Which is not so say AI planning is not going to happen. It will. But at that point it's probably mostly going to work.

Category: A product, that's obviously super useful, as long as it will work.

More than anything, what struck me was the excellence of the team -- a striking combination of morals, skills, sense of responsibility and purpose -- that existed in TNG around Capt Picard.

Whatever was done to get that going was an act of absolute geniuses. (Granted, it helps when the hard parts can be explained through fantasy.)

Will be interesting to find out what they can bring over simply having better SOTA LLM coded opponents (I am sure, we will).

There has to be a AAAA studio building the new, greatest MMO, that also utilizes LLMs as part of the game loop, surely?

(Not sure how prohibitive it would be to do anything interesting with local LLMs of any kind in a big game, given how many platforms/setups you have to make the stuff run smoothly on, and the sheer amount of RAM they would bind)

How do you mean? (I have played 1 hour of Factorio)

Man, if only there existed some central societal body with the authority to essentially freeze accounts and unwind a transaction like this. What a security feature that would be.

It's fairly hard to understand to me, but also entirely unsurprising that swapping one occupation for another would be interpreted as a net loss at individual skill level.

You guys are still doing things, correct? Is my experience so outside the norm, or is stuff still challenging?

Have you asked your system? Like, literally, "this new way of working is mentally overstraining me. What can we do at high level, that still is compatible with me in a competitive workspace?"

But they don't. If that was how making money with LLMs worked, everyone would just generate models that generate tokens that do nothing. But of course that is not how it works and they don't.

It's just really bad to do something with a lot of waste that someone else can do with less waste.

What market is going to care about the number of tokens somebody uses? That's like a market that cares about the number of if statements in a piece of code. It's nonsense.

Nobody is forcing Google to announce a model before they are cleared to release it.

It seems obvious that the AI stocks are an interesting buy, but I wonder how other people feel about picking between Anthropic/OpenAI/Google here. Looks all fairly random, given the wild swings and interoperability of the technology so far.

> The point at which new changes are more likely to degrade an application that's already excellent for its established use cases than they are to improve it further is the point at which we should consider the software "finished".

What I think: Being finished is not a property of the software. It's a function of skill of the maker to spot true opportunities to improve things, the skill of the maker to understand their own limitations to implement stuff (time, money, skill), and the current state of the software as it relates to the world.

It requires ongoing judgement and taste. If any of the inputs change, as they do, the answer changes.

When things get super trivial, you can probably consider them done at some point, but I hesitate. Let's for example just consider "cd" (the shell function). A typo like "cd /home/user/projcts" could offer a smart correction. If you went to "/home/user/work/clients/acme/backend/api" previously, through better usage of nav history you could maybe just get there by using "api".

Not claiming these off the cuff examples are great, and that they might not survive additional consideration, but it's fairly easy to see that they are arguable (and implementations like these already exist in some tools)

SpeedCrunch is much more complex and very far from inconceivably improvable, in my opinion.

Idk what that number does, other than stoke this kind of (very respectfully put) response. Seems fairly unnecessary/random.

> If that's true, how do you explain the observable pattern of many consumer applications degrading in UI functionality and coherence after a certain point?

Well, that's easy: Bad choices. The better something is, the easier it is to change it in a way, that makes it worse.

I agree with GP, everything can be improved, but that doesn't mean that you will succeed, or that you should try, for various, separate reasons.

I don't think they ever claimed that companies are easy, just because models are good?

1000 super smart humans don't just automagically make a good company, or make creating one easy. Idk, seems to just be confusing different things.

But: I am sure more of that will be happening in the future. Anthropic and OpenAI are building out their product portfolio, going into research (medical) more broadly.

Can anyone explain these to me? What does it do in practice that ChatGPT or Claude by itself does not. I look at it but it really doesn't click.

Paint me a real world picture.

Product remains hard. I feel the AI companies are certainly not good but actually surprisingly good about it.

Pretending to care is worse than not pretending to care.

It's hard to work against pretense, because pretending is lying, and shortcutting reality is hard to compete with, if people start to believe in the lie.

For example: I can promise to gift everyone a unicorn for upvoting this comment (thanks in advance!). Instead of working on a concept of how to make that happen, I can instead just pretend to work on making that happen and mostly work on selling that to you.

It's not necessarily easy, but much easier.