weego

If Costco made iPhones under license from Apple outside of the Apple supply chain and they all exploded, while the Apple name is involved they have no direct liability or responsibility.

Obviously anyone can make anything once they've seen it implemented from someone else's idea. Maybe sometimes the idea is the value in itself, the action of taking it from zero to product is just a means to distribute the idea.

I took the output and original specs and handed them to Claude today and the level of insight and concise detail in it's criticism and problem solving was fantastic. Dropped the others immediately

Saving is not sending ie passive vs active act.

Also, as you point out it can be both useful and largely ridiculous.

If the billions/trillions evaporate and the Fed has to work out with banks how to deal with it there will be a lot of pressure to be far less forgiving.

It's confusing enough that I don't know if this is just way above my knowledge level or whether I just don't understand what it even is.

It feels like you've developed something really useful but it's so internally obvious in your own head that it's missing some steps in the explanation for everyone else on how to come along with you and see the power of it.

How are even technology people falling for this plausible deniability gambit?

Navigating the landscape of agentic levers certainly requires a more detailed approach than this and you were certainly correct to push back.

The short version of the result is that we're completely copying the leaders in our market that have 100x our marketing budget because they're the only ones with documented strategies for AI to cheatsheet from, with no sense or irony or concern that perhaps their scale is a core part of their strategy.

It's not just institutional knowledge. We're suffering the death of the specialist. Now every generalist is pulling triggers with no sense of limitations.

go and kotlin aren't it, gleam scratches the itch but I can't justify writing code that would impossible to hire for.

scala situation is a real shame.

Add to that they're increasingly desperate for regulators to pull up the ladder and cement their position, they'll say any old shite and it'll get increasingly bizzare and outrageous.

But into today's AI climate it's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out who is shilling, who is being assinine and who actually believes AI could do these things without clear human instruction and enabling.

This is a wildly dismissive statement that does a lot of heavy lifting. Your assertion is that we just happened to hit on a methodology that has no limitations between being an encyclopedia with a novel human language interface and, I guess by implication, AGI?

That seems more outrageous a claim than the one you're dismissing.

There is not. No one from these products is even claiming that's the case and they're so desperate to make the next big claim to re-ignite investment they'd be shouting it from every rooftop.

It's just breaking out all the reasonable probabilities around what it's been tasked with and structuring them in a way that is designed to actively look human, and then feed it back to itself. Fundamentally that's the easiest way to iterate new features when the underlying architecture of LLMs is largely "fixed" right now. The fact it is output in a way that appears to reason through each is just a technical decision that creates an illusion of reasoning.