gtowey

8 ms·

91.
by gtowey 7mo ago
Good to know it's not a fait accompli yet, but I wont be surprised to see corporations pushing for this hard.
92.
by gtowey 7mo ago
It's the opposite, it's absolution from liability. "The AI did it" is the ultimate excuse to avoid accepting responsibility and consequences.
93.
by gtowey 7mo ago
The thing they are good at is bullshitting and selling hype. Which we see here doesn't mean they are actually going to be good at running a business. Smart leaders understand they are not omnipotent and omniscient so they surround them
94.
by gtowey 7mo ago
Synthesis is different than genesis. Just because there are lots of tasks which can be accomplished without the need for anything novel doesn't mean LLMs can match a human. It just means humans spend a lot of time doing some really bor
95.
by gtowey 7mo ago
Those CEOs don't exist in isolation. There are boards of directors. Most tech companies have additional VC funding. The biggest myth of modern business is that the CEO is the boss. They're not. They're more often the person e
96.
by gtowey 7mo ago
I have heard a large impetus for the RTO push was to prop up commercial real estate. Permanent WFH would change the value of trillions of dollars of properties and reshape the commercial centers of cities. A lot of people with a lot of mone
97.
by gtowey 7mo ago
I read it as presenting the reductionist side of the argument. Not saying that you personally believe it's good or right, only that it is what the majority of homeowners would think. In that sense I agree with the current state of real
98.
by gtowey 7mo ago
Only because they have compressed and encoded the entire sum of human knowledge at their disposal. There are models for everything in there, but they can only do what has been done before. What's more amazing to me is the average human
99.
by gtowey 7mo ago
> As a homeowner, I want number to go up. Which is myopic. As a homeowner, I want cities to be livable and affordable for those who want or have to live there. I don't care if the value of my home changes one cent. It's hones
100.
by gtowey 7mo ago
> I find that AI is very useful for getting me past the 'blank page' writing block, but inevitably it writes in ways I would never, and so I end up editing it heavily. But, for me, a boy with ADHD, editing something is infinite
101.
by gtowey 7mo ago
> Like it largely seems that geopolitics of now is about creating scarcity. How else do you create scarcity except by controlling all the resources?
102.
by gtowey 7mo ago
It's because technology doesn't change the fundamentals of global geopolitics. Which is that nearly all of history can be explained as a struggle to control basic resources such as arable land, oil, minerals, etc. Everything you
103.
by gtowey 7mo ago
> There is a kill switch ...because this thing will go rogue faster than you can blink. I swear, it's like nobody at the company even reads the slop they're generating or thinks about it for any amount of time. In what world
104.
by gtowey 7mo ago
Man does this hit home.
105.
by gtowey 7mo ago
It's the same as the offshoring episode of the early 2000's. There is such a massive financial incentive to somehow make the low quality code work. And they will try to resist the reality that it's a huge net negative for as
106.
by gtowey 7mo ago
A smart TV just means one that can show you advertising and hoover up personal data. This is additional revenue. What company would sell you anything else?
107.
by gtowey 8mo ago
It's like when the Titanic struck the iceberg and the crew mostly thought the ship would be fine. Just because they're still making money doesn't mean the company hasn't already been damaged beyond repair. But in this ca
108.
by gtowey 8mo ago
Yup. You learn the most valuable information from watching how things break and then fixing them. It's kind of like when the FAA does crash investigation -- a stunning amount of engineering and process insights have been generated by s
109.
by gtowey 8mo ago
Can an LLM give you an upfront estimate that a task will take multiple months? Can it decide intelligently what it would have to change if you said "do what you can to have it ready in half the time?"
110.
by gtowey 8mo ago
I would say that it's very germane to my original statement. Understanding is absolutely fundamental to strategy and it is pretty much why I can say LLMs can't be strategic. To really strategize you have to have mental model of we
111.
by gtowey 8mo ago
Yeah, it's strange to me that the default assumption is that current LLMs are already human-level AGI.
112.
by gtowey 8mo ago
> Not to rain on our hopes, but AI can give us some options and we can pick the best. But that's kind of my point. A bunch of decisions like that tend to end up with a "random walk" effect. It's a bunch of tactical ch
113.
by gtowey 8mo ago
> While I do tend to believe you, what evidence based data do you have to prove this is true? IMO the onus is to prove that they can be strategic. Otherwise you're asking me to prove a negative.
114.
by gtowey 8mo ago
LLMs can't be strategic because they do not understand the big picture -- that the real work of good software is balancing a hundred different constraints in a way that produces the optimal result for the humans who use it. It's n
115.
by gtowey 8mo ago
What's wrong with bananas?
116.
by gtowey 8mo ago
Would they risk a taxi ride if they knew that Uber failed to properly background check a driver, who later kidnapped and raped one of his passengers, and Uber's response was to hire private investigators to dig up personal information
117.
by gtowey 8mo ago
> These trends combined will mean that eventually it will seem old-fashioned to use a remotely-hosted model for anything other than the most demanding tasks. If that happens, then I suspect we will see legislation that makes it illegal t
118.
by gtowey 8mo ago
The moral issue is when the executives at Uber know with certainty that their driver compensation and incentives push drivers to neglect required maintenance on their vehicles. Much in the same way tobacco companies knew for a long time how
119.
by gtowey 8mo ago
The thing is you're still thinking of these insiders as someone who just got a juicy stock tip from a relative. The much more serious problem is when these insiders actually have their hands on the levers which decide the outcome. It&#
120.
by gtowey 8mo ago
I disagree. When you give people strong economic incentives to ignore morality, some people will. Not all, but enough to make a hash of things. In any population there will be some people who will do things they know are wrong just to get a

More ›