Satam

9 ms·

31.
by Satam 2y ago
I understand we do these things because we find enjoyment in them. But none of these instruments and gadgets are even going extinct. There might be real shifts happening in our culture but at the end of the day this is just an ad. The emoti
32.
by Satam 2y ago
It was a rhetorical question. I can't force people to feel a certain way but I can certainly say that they're being overly dramatic. And right, exactly, none of these things are actually extinct yet, so why dramatize? And if at so
33.
by Satam 2y ago
Technology is going to keep marching forward as it always has. Most of the gadgets being destroyed in the ad are fairly recent innovations. And they had already done their fair share of disruption too. Speakers made live music less necessar
34.
by Satam 2y ago
Why is it soul crushing? It looks to me like people are projecting their fears and insecurities onto this single ad. Sure, strategically Apple possibly should've caught on before releasing, but people are still being overly sensitive.
35.
by Satam 2y ago
I've noticed my memory and math skills getting worse as well. Can't say it's covid for sure though as there are other likely explanations too: getting fatter and out of shape, finishing uni and going out of practice, long-ter
36.
by Satam 2y ago
Not totally true. Yes, there's value in live performances and human connection but most of the songs we listen don't stimulate that. Hell, often we don't even know what the musician looks like, who they are, how they sound li
37.
by Satam 3y ago
Yes, what the hell! It's so good. One of the rare writings that's extremely insightful while being an absolute pleasure to read.
38.
by Satam 3y ago
Before reading the article, I was nodding along reading your comment. Having read the article... it's actually pretty good! "Just doing things" might be the right general approach but I feel that sometimes it's easy to g
39.
by Satam 3y ago
A professor might be able to iterate to a correct answer but a student might not. And ChatGPT is definitely able to get improve its answer by iterating, it just depends on the toughness of the problem. If it's too difficult, no amount
40.
by Satam 3y ago
To verify the answer you'll always need to trust the technical implementation that's doing the computation. Doesn't matter if it's our brains or a calculator. Somewhere between "it's always wrong" and &quo
41.
by Satam 3y ago
There's always some uncertainty to any kind of answer or computation, it's just at some threshold we unconsciously decide to take it for a fact.
42.
by Satam 3y ago
So the models might be getting smarter without discontinuous jumps. And it could just be that we're measuring them in a way that gives no credit for partial answers, thus we end up missing the signs that they've been getting conti
43.
by Satam 3y ago
There's money to be made for sure, and Stability's sloppy execution and strategy definitely didn't help them. But I think there are also industry-wide factors at play that make AI companies quite brittle for now.
44.
by Satam 3y ago
So the problem might be two-fold. First, there's an oversupply of companies trying to use AI relative to the current technological capabilities. Second, even when value is created, the companies don't capture the value to profit o
45.
by Satam 3y ago
With the current limitations of AI in mind, it often looks like a solution looking for a problem. It's too unreliable, slow, dumb, and too expensive for a lot of the tasks companies would like to use it for. And that becomes part of th
46.
by Satam 3y ago
The underlying reason is that current AI businesses and models are failing to capture any significant economic value. We're going to get there, but it will take some more work. It won't be decades, but a few more years would be he
47.
by Satam 3y ago
Exploit? No one's forcing people to solve captchas, they do it because it's a good deal for them. I'm from a country that was relatively quite poor just 15-20 years ago, and I can say stuff opportunities like were positive, n
48.
by Satam 3y ago
Haven't watched the interview but on Twitter Yann never admits being wrong, always bashes LLMs, and pushes his own architectures as the future but never shows big wins with them in practice.
49.
by Satam 3y ago
Can confirm this feels better than GPT-4 in terms of speaking my native language (Lithuanian). And GPT-4 was upper intermediate level already.
50.
by Satam 3y ago
Right, but Thunderbird had to pay up and set themselves as a middleman to allow this. My point is that local LLMs might not have that many advantages for personal data because most of that data doesn't live locally on your computer, to
51.
by Satam 3y ago
To use Google's sensitive APIs in production you have to certify your product and that costs tens of thousands. To be honest, didn't think about imap at first, but it looks like that could be getting tougher soon too https:/
52.
by Satam 3y ago
I have doubts about that. Most personal data actually lives in the cloud these days. If you need your Gmail emails, you'll need to use their API which is guarded behind $50k certification fee or so. I think there is a simpler version f
53.
PlanetScale is locking people out of their free databases(twitter.com)
21 points by Satam 3y ago|7 comments
54.
by Satam 3y ago
Ok, so I'm not very educated in the stock market. Could someone help get this straight? Uber raised like 20 billion privately + 8 on their IPO. After 14 years now they have made their first profits - 1 billion in the last 4 quarters. T
55.
by Satam 3y ago
Hmmm, an extremely interesting thought! Basically, agentifying might be the next programming. Do you have a guess how that would play out or how likely that might be? It seems like the main blocker here would be if the agents remain relativ
56.
by Satam 3y ago
The point of no return for the company might have been crossed way before the employees were forced to choose sides. Choose Sam's side and the company lives but only as a bittersweet reminder of its founding principles. Choose the boar
57.
by Satam 3y ago
Great point. Either way, when this all started it might have all been too late. The board said "allowing the company to be destroyed would be consistent with the mission" - and they might have been right. What's now left is a
58.
by Satam 3y ago
I'm sure most of them are extremely intelligent but the situation showed they are easily persuaded, even if principled. They will have to overcome many first-of-a-kind challenges on their quest to AGI but look at how quickly everyone g
59.
by Satam 3y ago
Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking a
60.
by Satam 3y ago
Hmm, my theory would be: don't look for the morally spotless ones, look for the ones with internal consistency, authenticity, and honesty. Everyone shits and everyone fucks, and in business, everyone cares about money (even if for diff

More ›