menacingly

right, but in that scenario I'd assume you'd also want to take a look at your ostensibly unrelated tools

If we want to do away with the godly rights of property owners and let people keep whatever they can take and defend, I am deeply in support of this plan, but I can't imagine it shakes out how the squatters like to think it would.

We'd just be taking the scenic route to roughly what we have, except I'm short a bunch of ammo.

does the stated purpose of the tool influence whether or not you can trust it?

definitely overhyped, but not useless. Consider one of your examples, Elastic. It's often employed in situations where the db could handle what it's doing just fine, but it survives, Largely because of optimizations it is free to make knowing it is targeted at a narrow set of tasks.

I actually wish this were true because of more predictable gc pauses

I think you’re safe assuming a disruptive player will eventually discover why what they disrupted was such a pain in the ass in the first place

I actually think the revocation argument is the over-engineering case here.

I'd argue that people who need to avoid hitting their database on every request outnumber people who need sub-minute revocation

We don't use JWTs because we think we're google scale, we use them because they're kinda cool. Cheap, stateless auth across services is really handy. If I rolled my own solution, it would just look like a shitty jwt.

There are definitely arguments to me made against ridiculous over-engineering, modern web dev has taken the problems of 1% of engineers and made them problems for 100% of engineers, but I think this is a bit of a silly one to focus on

Yeah, I just think it should make use of the nonverbal channel we use to communicate, otherwise we get frustrated at the inefficiency

I don't really care either way, but one thing that seems odd to me is how unlikable people seem to find the other voices (myself included)

If this were the massive creative effort they make it out to be, it seems like they'd have netted another solid result or two

Good. This is a part of the stack I want to be boring. I don't need innovative features.

It's the actual federal hate crime that are the egress costs I could do without.

Completely agree. I am shocked that this isn't apparent to everyone.

I am frustrated at the pure-hype tone this week took on. There are otherwise intelligent people with strong beliefs that OpenAI "has AGI". It's _ludicrous_ and embarrassing. There are people generating entire philosophies predicated on OpenAI just quietly sitting on a profound technological leap.

Even their missteps are explained as actually good. We've seen some regressions on gpt-4o performance. But that's OK, because it isn't supposed to be smarter, because of its very aggressive claims about future features, but they can distract with fearhype, never release or nerf them, and cite unverifiable safety concerns.

Google released some impressive, useful things this week. I really want to believe that oai's striking claims of simultaneous generation-leaping features, reduced cost, and wide scale will come to pass. But if that tech demo was the equivalent of a concept car that will never really see production, I'm looking for a new AI hero.

I agree that this will happen (I said in another post), but I can't for the life of me attach it to one of the points I made

I think it's less that only 4 wizards on earth can create it, and more that hardly anyone wants to.

If Apple, Google, or MS are integrating LLMs, they can't get away with "you can talk to this website". The intersection of "has the cash to train a LLM" and "LLM is itself the entire offering" is very small

First, "objectively beat" doesn't matter. Comparative LLM performance means more or less nothing without application.

Let's say Google's LLM has slightly poorer reasoning, and you have to be really clear when you tell it to delete your old emails. What are you going to do, go to ChatGPT and have it very eloquently walk you through how to manually delete your emails?

But the idea that Google, the terrifying nation-state, who covetously gobbled up most of the bright minds of a generation, just couldn't fathom RLHF, means you think there is some inherent magic at OpenAI.

I use OpenAI's models a lot, obviously they're great, but whole-thread-as-context as a product is not a product, and Google has people plural who could execute that from first principles.

I think the point is not "chatGPT isn't good", it's that no one is beating physics, you can rough out the coefficients on a napkin, and they're playing chicken with who wants to set more piles of money on fire.

It _is_ the best frontier LLM in the world, and virtually the entire global population of people who care about that are in this thread

I think what is probably very stressful about this space is virtually everyone knows how ChatGPT works. It is not a theoretical leap. It's actually fairly predictable how this shakes out, and OpenAI is pretty vulnerable.

an LLM is a curiosity without user data, anyone with a big silo of data can put out something years behind frontier and still instantly see huge usage. No one wants to go to AI, they want AI to come to them, unless OpenAI can stake a claim in a super novel way they're the Dropbox.

It's not like someone is going to use insider OpenAI knowledge to build an LLM so advanced you switch email, phone, or ERP providers

So, China aggressively threatens everyone who recognizes Taiwan for decades, and the resultant lack of recognition for Taiwan is used to delegitimize attempts to defend them?

The people who care are the people who upvoted it so it'd make the top 20.

I think usually when someone spots a conflict like this, it's an inconsistency in their idea of the community rather than in the community.

It wouldn't be a federal security document if it didn't avoid the intractable core problems in exchange for deep obsession with the details

you're never going to believe this, but the other side feels the same way

I find the Python community Stockholm syndrome over dependency management kind of charming, it feels like one of the old internet holy wars.

It's absolutely nuts that you'd repeatedly meet the same criticism, independently arrived at all over the place, and just conclude it's some statistical anomaly of bigotry and fools.

"Well, I don't have these problems, I just {{500 word article}}"

it's actually because layout-via-code for arbitrary documents is a humblingly complex problem, so leveraging existing layout engines is preferred.

This impressive effort looks far better than what I'd achieve, but when this approach has been tried before, it is eventually discovered that few organizations have the resources to maintain a rendering engine long-term.

Of course it’s line. How could it be the end of the string when the matter at hand is defining the string?

scale means making the problems faced by 20% of your community a problem for all of your community

Also as a hunter, I can envision a scenario or 4 where an animal might surprise me

depop is fine as long as we start with the depops

you can't operate at any scale at all without mechanisms in place to know perfectly well whether an issue is impacting a single customer or if your world is on fire

Yeah, I meant that to be the implication of the sentence, at some point folks take their ball and go home, and we have to see weeks of trending hashtags about the injustice done to Europe

(I honestly wish I could so clearly order my thoughts in writing like you have done here)

That it is mutually beneficial is sort of my point. If every developer jumped ship, iOS would be in trouble. But they won't. They absolutely will not. It's a humorous hypothetical. So I'm not the only one viewing the platform users as an asset. So is everyone clamoring to reach them.

It's not being an evil monopoly merely to have built the most desirable thing. Android exists today. It doesn't have anywhere near the access to the people who spend money. Apple spent decades cultivating that access, and they're in an extremely strong position because of it.

I hate the app store, it's a lazy mess. I hate Apple's deliberate crippling of the open web to stifle competition. That's probably far more fruitful ground for legislative action. But setting a price for what you can choose to either buy or not buy from them seems wildly within the bounds of what they're allowed to do.