i love this and have been a long time complainer that browsers dont automatically operate this way.
how does it handle forms or homepages with refreshed content? for example, the home page of hackernews - will it always show the latest feed from the last time i had a connection or will it store each time ive visited it ?
I do not trust any LLM. But I am with the other person, the intention is not to discredit you or make you convince us - you are doing exactly what a comment section is designed for. Your comment is so good, in fact, that we want to trust it more than a comment in general deserves to be trusted.
while i agree its better to go off and prove it to ourselves, there is merit in having a conversation here
how is it a conflict of interest for a google product to have a bias towards using google products?
As users we must hold some accountability. AI is aiming to substitute for humans in the workforce, and humans would get fired for recommending competitor products for use-cases their own company is targeting.
If we want a tool that is focused on the best interest of the public users, then it needs to be owned by the public.
"Conflict of interest" isn't exactly the right term. "Conflict of value proposition" perhaps? E.g., you're using Google search based on the proposition it will effectively find things for you, but that turns out to be not what it actually does.
First, I've spent a ton of time becoming opinionated about a normalized data model that supports the product experience I'm trying to build. This applies both to the extraction (line items, warranty sections, vendors, etc.) and the analysis portion. The latter is imperfect, but aligns philosophically with what I'm willing to stand behind. For example
- building outputs for price fairness (based on publicly available labor data)
- scope match (is vendor over/under scoping user's intent)
i work in cost and pricing, and while i see the allure of AI helping out with it and I would love to be able to hand it over and work on other things, i feel like so much of this work involves things outside the sandbox.
Take price fairness, for example. i feel like the human part is core to this work. it ultimately all comes down to a test of reasonableness. A wide brush for costs is sometimes used because it keeps things trackable by the humans involved. An AI is able to generate an amount of work thats unreasonable to verify. At the end of the day, pricing is a negotiation not a logic puzzle.
If it does work though, i think it could open a huge door for Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts which seem like the fairest contract type but often come with too much burden of paper work compared to the more popular firm fixed price option
I agree. Additionally, a company can own and update a business language of their own design at their own pace and need. Then they can use AI to translate from their controlled business language to the DSL needed (translation being an area it actually does well). In this way the LLM would only ever be going from General -> specific, which should keep it on the rails, and the business can keep its business logic stored
Now that said, there is still the actual engineering problem of leveraging the capabilities of the underlying technology. For example, being able to map your 4 core program to a 16 core system and have it work is one thing, actually utilizing 16 cores is another. Extend to all technological advancements
> I agree. Additionally, a company can own and update a business language of their own design at their own pace and need.
Yes, although I was more thinking of this being in most cases a SaaS offering because the implementation of the DSL needs solid non-LLM engineering. Larger companies will be able to afford an internal platform team, but most won't.
> Now that said, there is still the actual engineering problem of leveraging the capabilities of the underlying technology. For example, being able to map your 4 core program to a 16 core system and have it work is one thing, actually utilizing 16 cores is another.
I see this more of an extension of existing trends, for example Wordpress themes with limited customizability. Most DSLs won't allow full utilization of the underlying technology, on purpose because that's the only way to keep it simple. I do see this leading to a split into two classes of developers: those who only target simple DSLs using an LLM, and the "hard" engineers who might use LLMs every now and then, but mostly not.
I see the angle you're coming from now, more mass market and expanding best practices from bigger companies out to medium and small businesses looking for plug and play solutions.
I was thinking more about what I believe you describe as the "hard" engineers, and would say the power AI provides for mapping and translating will greatly benefit those teams as well with the right set-up. People are pushing for the "code for me" angle, but i think there will be a lot of opportunity to have LLMs take on a middle ground of syntax management while the engineers manage the system effects. for example, the engineer may be deciding whether to use a linked list or binary tree and the LLM is implementing it with the available code stack approved by the company.
A company that can successfully implement such an LLM opens up their talent pool from people who know their stack (or want to learn it) to people who know any stack
> for example, the engineer may be deciding whether to use a linked list or binary tree and the LLM is implementing it with the available code stack approved by the company
At this point it's a slightly more sophisticated version of the IDE's "refactor tool". If, in addition to replacing "HashMap" with "LinkedList" in a bunch of places, it might also fix tests, then it's indeed useful but won't be worth paying much more for it.
> A company that can successfully implement such an LLM opens up their talent pool from people who know their stack (or want to learn it) to people who know any stack
Think about it: if the business usefulness of a tool is mostly in reducing onboarding time by even a 75%, it's not really that valuable.
>Or worse, they were doing some dark management technique of "well he's really hauling ass right now, if he makes the original deadline we'll be ahead of schedule, and if he doesn't we have the spare capacity"
As a business analyst who has worked a lot with executive teams at multiple companies, this is almost always the case (ime). Deadlines are only shortened down the chain, never extended. The assumption is that if it cannot be done then they will simply not administer any consequences and classify it as "not realizing the upside".
The only reason it is almost always and not always, is because sometimes a different thing pops up that needs to get prioritized first, so it is communicated that the first thing isnt actually as important as it was yesterday and this other thing is now the most important.
Now obviously I cant speak for everyone at all teams, but as far as boring corporate default behavior goes this is the safe path for executives. If your boss is doing otherwise, they are going out of their way to do it.
The takeaway as a worker is that you should not treat any business goal or deadline ask of you with the same level of care as you would a personal favor. When something really needs that level of care, your boss should pull you aside and break character and make it a personal favor to them, not the business.
As far as "Ownership" goes, it is just a pissing contest as far as I can tell. if you own a task but cant do the task, you just send an email to someone who can do the task so that the task gets done and you can report the task is done and get your ownership credit. the person who did the task was used as a tool in this regard. So high performing managers just try to get ownership of as much as they possibly can, as there's no meaningful difference between who sends that email.
The easiest way to break the mental barrier caused by short form content for me is to remind myself that knowing something is not the final product. The final product is trusting the knowledge and communicating that trust. Any information that finds itself to me without me asking for it is inherently less trustworthy and less communicable than information I hunted for with intention
Short form content feeds are like unloading a dumptruck full of random items into your driveway. Is it actually better if all that stuff you didnt ask for is real information that needs to be organized and pieced together with what you already know without any of the associated context that helps you do that? Or is it better if you know 99% of it is trash and you dont need to remember any of it?
I think a tool like this is great for people who want to use short form content intentionally, and personally that only happens when I am bored and in need of a new topic to research. I think of all short form content like marketing/ads, just showcasing something i might be interested to dig into on my own. It's how i used StumbleUpon website back in the day.
But I have noticed I am rarely using short form content with intention. its because i want to check what my friends have posted, and then with the extra downtime i scroll a little bit, and sometimes get stuck
i would place my money on the vast gap between effort and reward. you dont even need to think "if i swipe..." because the thought takes longer than the action. So why would you stop to consider what you might have to gain by swiping when you can literally swipe and find out faster than you can think about it?
Then you go about your regular day and suddenly everything feels harder in comparison. You have to think about what youre doing, you have to coordinate or plan your actions, you have to put work in. The swiping rots your ability to maintain and coordinate your chain of actions.
thankfully it is much more of a daily cycle than a true addiction. if you spike dopamine in the first hour of being awake, you effectively addict yourself for the day. whether you follow through on that addiction or not is less relevant, it kind of shapes your baseline. So you might just have a harder day than usual because it was a dopamine deprived day and instead of having a low baseline you primed your brain for a very stimulating day by having a high-dopamine activity in the morning.
how does it handle forms or homepages with refreshed content? for example, the home page of hackernews - will it always show the latest feed from the last time i had a connection or will it store each time ive visited it ?
reply