3 ms·

What do you find offence with? Hip speech and yawn-2.0-s aside, I find the claim entirely defendable, given, of course, a certain set of assumptions in this ver

What do you find offence with? Hip speech and yawn-2.0-s aside, I find the claim entirely defendable, given, of course, a certain set of assumptions in this very new and uncertain space.

upupupandaway 3y ago
How is it defendable? How do you defend 10x? What about 11x? Why not 3.5x? This is complete bullshit.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > How is it defendable? How do you defend 10x? Uncertainty. Given incomplete information it is common practice to make assumptions about things to give us some starting point from which to act. In this context a round integer value pretty much implies: They are estimating, and they might be completely off. I guess you could say, "Instead of making assumptions with uncertainty, let's not assume anything", but that makes progress in new and uncertain areas really hard.
  - Barrin92 3y ago
    It's a common and bad practice because quantitative language belongs in the domain of risk, not uncertainty. Two very different things. Risk is the world of stationary laws and empirical data. Fluid markets, mortality stats, that kind of thing. The "10x AI productivity boost" is about as real as the "10x engineer", that's to say, the PR department made it up. It's just vibes, but it's a symptom of a culture that unduly reveres anything that sounds "mathy".
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      I think it's pedantic argument. Obviously he meant that his bet is the future is something and willing to work for it. No need to scratch your head. 10x is not maths 10x and no one thinks it is literally 10.0x.
ben_w 3y ago
I'm entirely ready to believe AI will soon write all apps and UI. I don't see such rewrites being a x10 market opportunity, given there's already "an app for that" even when there shouldn't be.
- logicchains 3y ago
  He doesn't mean AI will rewrite the apps, he means the apps/their UIs will be rewritten to use natural language input.
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    I thought he meant that more interfaces will be designed to be used by AI.
    - jprete 3y ago
      If three of you have such substantially different interpretations of the text, then it’s almost certainly bullshit.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    > He doesn't mean AI will rewrite the apps <puts lollipop away>
    - ben_w 3y ago
      This is an off topic question, but it's been tickling my mind since I first saw your comment: What's the meme/figure of speech here?
- echelon 3y ago
  He means that a world that requires engineers for most things vs. a world that doesn't is a very different world. If your average joe on the street can automate their own random business task, that's a very different world than the one we have today. This is totally a 10x opportunity if it pans out. Maybe even bigger. If it pans out.

What do you find offence with? Hip speech and yawn-2.0-s aside, I find the claim entirely defendable, given, of course, a certain set of assumptions in this very new and uncertain space.

upupupandaway 3y ago

How is it defendable? How do you defend 10x? What about 11x? Why not 3.5x? This is complete bullshit.

jstummbillig 3y ago
> How is it defendable? How do you defend 10x? Uncertainty. Given incomplete information it is common practice to make assumptions about things to give us some starting point from which to act. In this context a round integer value pretty much implies: They are estimating, and they might be completely off. I guess you could say, "Instead of making assumptions with uncertainty, let's not assume anything", but that makes progress in new and uncertain areas really hard.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  It's a common and bad practice because quantitative language belongs in the domain of risk, not uncertainty. Two very different things. Risk is the world of stationary laws and empirical data. Fluid markets, mortality stats, that kind of thing. The "10x AI productivity boost" is about as real as the "10x engineer", that's to say, the PR department made it up. It's just vibes, but it's a symptom of a culture that unduly reveres anything that sounds "mathy".
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    I think it's pedantic argument. Obviously he meant that his bet is the future is something and willing to work for it. No need to scratch your head. 10x is not maths 10x and no one thinks it is literally 10.0x.

ben_w 3y ago

I'm entirely ready to believe AI will soon write all apps and UI. I don't see such rewrites being a x10 market opportunity, given there's already "an app for that" even when there shouldn't be.

logicchains 3y ago
He doesn't mean AI will rewrite the apps, he means the apps/their UIs will be rewritten to use natural language input.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  I thought he meant that more interfaces will be designed to be used by AI.
  - jprete 3y ago
    If three of you have such substantially different interpretations of the text, then it’s almost certainly bullshit.
- dboreham 3y ago
  > He doesn't mean AI will rewrite the apps <puts lollipop away>
  - ben_w 3y ago
    This is an off topic question, but it's been tickling my mind since I first saw your comment: What's the meme/figure of speech here?
echelon 3y ago
He means that a world that requires engineers for most things vs. a world that doesn't is a very different world. If your average joe on the street can automate their own random business task, that's a very different world than the one we have today. This is totally a 10x opportunity if it pans out. Maybe even bigger. If it pans out.