lanthissa

It feels like it should be true that a referentially transparent type safe language would be the 'right' language for ai coding since each code block is stateless you should be able to in parellel decompose problems and test them infinitely down.

only if you're cynical, google found a much better solution though, make them IC's again and redistribute the junior talent to places they can grow and offer buyouts for anyone who feels like they're not into it anymore.

we had this in my company it was pretty hit miss. Almost always the 'TLM' was someone who was in the role for a really long time and it warranted a second person, so it ended up being a 1-2 junior reporting in absorbing the knowledge that the tlm had.

If you were in a growing domain, and the TLM stayed engaged with the code it worked really well, but as soon as one of those failed it was a bad roi for the company and a pretty terrible experience for everyone. the juniors were never getting promoted since there was only room for 1 expert on the small domain. The TLM was just chilling getting 5-10% raises a year without going outside of their little kingdom, but making sure their domain worked well.

As their junior got better they coded less but their juniors couldn't grow as long as they were there because the niche didn't need that many people.

I don't think its a coincidence that all these companies eliminated these rolls after 2022. When you have unlimited money and massive headcount growth these roles can exist and give your good but not exceptional people room for career growth. At static headcount, you basically need to do what banks do -- yearly cuts or no one can be promoted or hired.

you cant make 90% of your codebase ai generated if you reuse code all the time, just dont abstract.

tsmc(taiwan) will blink for the same reason europe did and japan did, and for the same reason india and brazil did not.

when you take a step back and look at the deal breakdown, this is protection money not a trade negotiation.

hire like 8 people?

there has yet to be a value openAI originally claimed to have that has lasted a second longer than there was profit motive to break it.

they went from open to closed. they went from advocating ubi to for profit. they went from pacific to selling defense tech. they went from a council overseeing the project to a single man in control.

and thats fine, go make all the money you can, but don't try do this sick act where you try to convince people to thank you for acting in your own self interest.

its not a rivalry if one party is not in the competition, its just jealousy

can someone help me understand how the following can be true:

1. TPU's are a serious competitor to nvidia chips.

2. Chip makers with the best chips are valued at 1-3.5T.

3. Google's market cap is 2T.

4. It is correct for google to not sell TPU's.

i have heard the whole, its better to rent them thing, but if they're actually good selling them is almost as good a business as every other part of the company.

by designing ai first products that can operate at far lower margins. Google has to extract hundreds of billions a year, perplexity, anthropic, openai all dont.

Idk what the future of the browser is but i know if i was in the lab at any of these companies i'd be laughing at the competition putting a out a product that was just a text summary in a window.

it doesn't even have to be that. software engineer used to be a medium pay job, theres no law of the universe that says it cant go back to that.

this done well is a transformational thing, its just no one has been willing to invest yet, but the compute on a phone is now good enough to do most things most users do on desktop.

I can easily see the future of personal computing being a mobile device with peripherals that use its compute and cloud for anything serious. be that airpods, glasses, watches, or just hooking that device up to a larger screen.

theres not a great reason for an individual to own processing power in a desktop, laptop, phone, and glasses when most are idle while using the others.

they're paying to aquire places where you can sell tokens at a markup, because the future is multiple base models that are good enough for most user tasks where user gateways play the base model providers off each other and capture a lot of the value

AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity.

Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.

With stuff like this, they like the team that built it and want them on their side.

If you believe the founders/team is the right group to deliver a core product 3b is nothing to get them onside.

US wont end up in the situation that UK finds itself in because the land it occupies is some of the most productive land on earth and at a similar scale as china. The incredible wealth of america, is that its a land mass that in the old world would be supporting 500m-1.5b people, but is divided only amount 350m.

The city at the center of the Missouri and Mississippi if it were in europe would be a major civilization. In the US its saint louis. The US, CA, and AU have an option few countries do -- at any point they want nominal gdp growth all they have to do is open the door.

I agree with you though that china's incredibly impressive.

didnt you listen to the 70 year olds planning this? we're just going have the robots do it.

you know how people said putin was surrounded by an echo chamber and thats how he got stuck in ukraine? Thats the us now but with billionare VC's and 2nd tier 1980's NYC real estate developers. Look at their numbers and listen to them talk, they're genuinely not grounded in reality as whole group and theres no fixing that

its really far less cash than you think, if they make a central clearing house for digital ad sales and anoint a EU wide cloud leader, they have two trillion dollar companies in the next few years with little innovation needed. then use the funds and talent from that to build a tech industry, this is exactly what china did.

In a stable society where you dont tax wealth, this is the inevitable outcome.

some of the largest scala codebases under active development make heavy use of this feature.

agreed, intuitively, referential transparency + strong types 'feels' like it should be the best ai programming language.

and exhaustive pattern matching + result types should help as well pushing issues out of runtime.

I really like gleam, the vibes are 'right' for me in that its got a strong type system and a functional style. Coming from scala land, that feels natural.

I think the author hit on a core challenge gleam will have to face, outside of dx. its main niche would be highly scalable type safe server apps, pretty similar to what scala is/was originally imagined as.

Its very hard to occupy that niche when by definition the projects you look to take on are large enough for languages to be heavily scrutinized. Your CTO wont really care if you choose rust, node, or go for some internal tooling. They will absolutely care about what is being used for core distributed services, and that just makes adoption hard.

you do the same thing with the llm, you have it describe the api of modules not related to your code and that in place of those segments of the code.

Maybe its just a function of growing up during the transition of physical software to advert/subscription software, but i love the advertising model.

What google has done for the web; youtube, maps, gmail/gsuite, chromium/v8 are fantastic products that cost huge sums to develop, and the world gets to use them for free. Thats amazing. Its a huge gift to society that the a fantastic knowledge and productivity suite is available to everyone.

I have a lot more of a problem with infinite scroll & algorithmic content delivery than advertising.

Meta believes the dollars at the end of the AI race will be in walled gardens and prop data, not data centers and models.

They are going to do everything they can to make sure no one uses the time that models and data centers are limiting factors to disrupt them.

In the same way google demonetized the application layer of the web to prevent walled gardens from blocking search.

If models and hardware become commoditized at the end of the race meta will have a complete psychographic profile of people on an individual and group level to study, and serve incredibly targeted content to.

Their only real competition in that would be someone developing a 'her' like app that takes people out of social media and into their own individual silo'ed worlds. In a lot of ways discord is the alternative world to meta's ecosystem. hyper focused invite only small communities.

Climate change is the byproduct of the desired outcome, energy. Advanced AI, if you buy Yuval's argument is the threat in and of itself.

So Climate Change is a problem that can be 'solved' while the main goal is pursued. This is ideologically consistent with gates investment in terrapower. Where as AI isn't because the desired outcome is the threat not a bi-product.

So your questions a bit flawed fundamentally.

As for gate's point is it true, almost certainly yes, the game theory is peruse and lie that you aren't, or openly pursue. You can't ever not pursue because you do not and cannot have perfect information.

Imagine how much visibility china would demand from the US to trust it was doing nothing, far more than they could give, and vice versa.

Do you think the us is going to give its adversaries tracking and production information its most advanced chips? It would never, and if they did why would other powers trust it if theres every reason to lie.

If you want all the dollars fine, but pretending you're doing us a favor is creepy.

I'd be confused by them choosing to not enter hte more lucrative business if they had the product to do so.

The only way the current situation makes sense is if your last sentence is true, which is what i'm getting at. Either TPUs are significantly behind Nvidia chips, or google is choosing not to add like a trillion dollars of market cap to their business its really one or the other.

This is the thing that makes no sense to me, if TPU's are even close to nvidia its a business worth as much as search. They could spend billions on just dx and get 100x that back on investment.

The whole TPU line makes no sense to me, if its as good as it says (which is does seem to be) sell it publicly and add a trillion to your market cap.

The only way this makes any sense is if inside google people legitimately think google cloud is going to be bigger than nvidia+ a lot of azure&aws, which seems crazy

Okay I really dont understand this, nvidia has a 3.4T market cap google has a 2.4T post run up, and its PE is like 38 vs 25 so its a higher multiple on the business too. It appears making the best AI chip is a better business than googles entire conglomerate.

If TPU's are really that good why on earth would google not sell them. People say its better to rent, but how can that be true when you look at the value of nvidia.