keeda

24 ms·

391.
by keeda 6mo ago
No, the argument is they want to sell more product to more people , not just more product (to the same people.) Given that a lot of their income is from flat-rate subscriptions, they make money with more people burning tokens rather than j
392.
by keeda 6mo ago
I'm convinced a lot of the backlash against AI is driven by LinkedInfluenza posts like this one. I don't see such unhinged AI hype anywhere else... but then I'm not on Twitter.
393.
by keeda 6mo ago
> The transition Apple and Tim Cook announced today is entirely different. No one’s hand was forced. I don't follow Apple very closely, but given this is coming right after the AI leadership shakeup and at a time where Apple'
394.
by keeda 6mo ago
> No, the rest of the quote you snipped that from talks about how some of the reports are from personal experience... And those were "dabbling" as I mentioned above, which is why there is no insight. Concrete example: the mos
395.
by keeda 6mo ago
That's fair, it is survey based but it is apparently based on formal internal measurements. The full report ( https://ai.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025... -- slides 43 onwards) m
396.
by keeda 6mo ago
Good questions! I have only skimmed through the report but slide 45 onwards of the full report has some vague numbers: https://ai.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025... Can't say why t
397.
by keeda 6mo ago
They (and other AI players) have been using WAU over DAU for all their metrics, and many have questioned why. But if you look at other data sources of AI adoption, the reason is clear: Even while 56% of Americans now "regularly" u
398.
by keeda 6mo ago
It still takes 3 - 5 years or more even for that incremental progress. It takes years to just catch up on the field! Do we expect PhD candidates to subsist on barely livable wages until they eventually publish a ground-breaking result? That
399.
by keeda 6mo ago
>. Several of them come from experienced software engineers who use LLMs professionally in their work. So, not from personal experience. And we don't know which examples came from which users or what they used them for. We get eno
400.
by keeda 6mo ago
> We're seeing exactly the same thing with AI, as there is massive investment creating a bubble without a payoff. ... And so far there's no evidence that all this investment has generated more profit for the users of AI. If y
401.
by keeda 6mo ago
> You missed the part where he is consistently unimpressed by the failure of LLMs to do the task he hands to them... Not really, those are exactly the things said by people who dabble with LLMs a little and turn to "breathless nay
402.
by keeda 6mo ago
[0] is a throwaway paragraph that handwaves at second-hand accounts of generic things LLMs can do, with no further discussion, apparently because he (surprisingly!) has almost no first-hand experience with them. Then there are 10 pages of n
403.
by keeda 6mo ago
They're not looking for solutions, they're capitalizing on the AI backlash. It's just the new form of rageviews. The only saving grace is that this is less cynical than typical rageviews, considering they have something of a
404.
by keeda 6mo ago
I suspect the cause-and-effect in creating the narrative is the reverse of what's in the narraitve: Frank Herbert wanted the intricate dynamics of the Guild and Spice and Mentats and exciting close-quarter combat for a more intriguin
405.
by keeda 6mo ago
Eh, this has been a disappointing series to read from the person that wrote all those Jepsen write-ups and the technical interview series. All articles are mostly a regurgitation of all the negativity that gets aired here all the time (a lo
406.
by keeda 6mo ago
Fascinating read, even though I think the model deviations over time are more to do with context windows getting too large. If nothing else, worth reading for the references to quirks of human cognition and "free will." The "
407.
by keeda 6mo ago
I think the premise is: 1) The number of vulnerabilities surfaced (and fixed?) in a given software is roughly proportional to the amount of attention paid to it. 2) Attention can now be paid in tokens by burning huge amounts of compute (bon
408.
by keeda 6mo ago
I think this is common sense advice rather than a philosophical stance about free speech, said advice being generalized as "When in a foreign country, avoid trouble." As an example, if you visit China and start FA about Tibet, you
409.
by keeda 6mo ago
>Security through obscurity is a losing bet against automation Security through obscurity is only problematic if that is the only, or a primary, layer of defense. As an incremental layer of deterrence or delay, it is an absolutely vali
410.
by keeda 6mo ago
Very true, but that is still a meaningfully higher cost at scale. If, as people are postulating post-Mythos, security comes down to which side spends more tokens, it is a valid strategy to impose asymmetric costs on the attacker.
411.
by keeda 6mo ago
Security through obscurity is only problematic if that is the only, or a primary, layer of defense. As an incremental layer of deterrence or delay, it is an absolutely valid tactic. (Note, not commenting on whether that is the rationale her
412.
by keeda 6mo ago
> If I want to know what an LLM has to say, I can prompt it myself. The flaw is assuming that the only input to this piece was a prompt. What would you prompt it with to get the content in this blog post?
413.
by keeda 6mo ago
I think, long term, there will be only one job comprising all these aspects. The only absolutely-minimum-required skill will be critical thinking, possibly along with data / statistical literacy for grounding. "Specialization is f
414.
by keeda 6mo ago
I've said it before, but it would be a mistake to just focus on the models, and ignore everything else that is changing in the ecosystem -- tools, harnesses, agents, skills, availability of compute, etc. -- things are changing very qui
415.
by keeda 6mo ago
I find it interesting that given lack of direction or motive, the agent chose to do essentially two things: 1. Seek new information (browse HN); 2. Identify new connections between disparate pieces of information (as evidenced in those blog
416.
by keeda 6mo ago
Because it still could have novel and interesting content?
417.
by keeda 6mo ago
Not really managers, I would put the new role more in the senior engineer / architect category. Those still have to deal with deeply technical things like design, architecture, problem decomposition, research, domain expertise, code re
418.
by keeda 6mo ago
This comment is getting punished for the incorrect timeline (I would know, I've been harping on about AI getting good at coding for ~2 years now!) but I do think it is directionally correct. Just over 3 years ago, (publicly available)
419.
by keeda 6mo ago
1. This is not speculation. Individuals and small teams are already developing and deploying ambitious projects that previously required entire teams. Entire open source projects have been rewritten from scratch and relicensed by individual
420.
by keeda 6mo ago
Once in a while we get to see concrete numbers for some of them, e.g. Meta spent $27M+ in one year on Zuck's security, which is way more than the other CEOs: https://fortune.com/2025/08/16/mark-zuckerberg

More ›