“it drove right through my kitchen wall. And I hadn’t even ordered one!”

I like it a lot but I need two physical SIM slots so it doesn’t work for me, unfortunately. But great idea and love the price drop

Thanks, I understand better now.

On a related note, I wish I had known of the “just because I said it and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded” line of defense when I was a kid

Meta argued that “the FTC’s case rests almost entirely on emails (many more than a decade old) allegedly expressing competitive concerns” but suggested that this is only “intent” evidence, “without any evidence of anticompetitive effects.”

Not sure I understand the argument. if I write that I’m going to buy another company instead of competing with them, then I go ahead and I do buy that exact company, are they arguing that the two things are not necessarily related?

That’s true but at least one of these things needs to happen:

1. the forklift costs billions and consumes tons of energy, but it can lift a whole mountain, which no group of humans can do

2. the forklift helps a team of 10 do the work of 50 and, while still relatively expensive, it costs less than the 40 people it’s replacing

3. the forklift becomes an inexpensive commodity and it augments human capabilities and creates new possibilities for society as a whole

This is roughly what happened with mainframes to personal computers to mobile devices. LLMs are stuck between 1 and 2, they are not good enough forklifts to lift a mountain and not cheap enough to replace 40 people and save money. There are some hints that they could at one point move to 3 but the large players that could make it happen are starting to be scared by the amount of investment to get there.

On a related note, lot of people are being fooled by this hype machine mixing GenAI with good “old” machine learning and you now read about all these “AI wins” like “student discovers new galaxies with AI” or “scientist discover new medicines with AI” that make it sound like these people just asked ChatGPT “how would you go about discovering a new galaxy?” or “could you make up a new drug for me pretty please?”.

yes, but with at least $100M of additional VC funding

“organic AI”

yes, there are clearly unfair trade practices here. EU has been making money for Google and Amazon, but the US are not using our services. I hear the best solution to this are tariffs: EU users have to pay to use gmail until enough US users start using EU email providers and we rebalance the services trade!

You make a great point. But just to stay on the example of cars: besides the innovation on EVs, there’s this horrible tendency to consider cars as tablets on wheels, both in the sense that you can forget about repairing them by yourself and in the sense that they are now increasingly becoming low-margin hardware to run higher margin subscription services. If anything warrants high valuation for a car company it would arguably be the innovation on EVs, rather than the SaaS model.

I hope the idea of Car Software As a Service dies before becoming too widespread. But if it doesn’t, maybe car companies wouldn’t become “Tech” companies, just more shitty subscription vendors. And their stock should be valued as such, not for the largely unwanted “Tech innovation”.

By that measure shouldn’t Disney be considered a Tech company too? Or I guess banks and insurance companies.

I hadn’t thought of it that way, but maybe the article (at least the small part I can read with no paywall) is on to something, Companies that sell access to technology or rely on technology to sell something else (he does give the example of e-commerce) should not be “Tech” companies.

The part I didn’t get to is where the author draws the line to tell what companies ARE Tech. I guess OpenAI or Google would qualify. They sell services but they are services they invented and made, with considerable researxh and investment. But what about Amazon or Netflix?

Agree. The MO is totally different: funding for bis research would be cut, he would be fired and then deported very publically.

With Grok looking more and more like the only one working for Musk with enough (digital) balls to stand up to his boss, that might be better than the alternative of “Big Balls” and the rest of the Digital Oblivous Goons of Elon

Hahaha, good point. On the other hand, “cheap” depends on the perspective. From Musk’s it’s an incredibly cheap way to get a big payoff…huge ROI!

“Hey we said ‘rapidly’, nobody said anything about it still working when we’re done”

I want to believe that commoditization of AI will happen as you describe, with AI made by devs for devs. So far what I see is “developer productivity is now up and 1 dev can do the work of 3? Good, fire 2 devs out of 3. Or you know what? Make it 5 out of 6, because the remaining ones should get used to working 60 hours/week.”

All that increased dev capacity needs to translate into new useful products. Right now the “new useful product” that all energies are poured into is… AI itself. Or even worse, shoehorning “AI-powered” features in all existing product, whether it makes sense or not (welcome, AI features in MS Notepad!). Once this masturbatory stage is over and the dust settles, I’m pretty confident that something new and useful will remain but for now the level of hype is tremendous!

deleted by creator

It’s not that LLMs aren’t useful as they are. The problem is that they won’t stay as they are today, because they are too expensive. There are two ways for this to go (or an eventual combination of both:

• Investors believe LLMs are going to get better and they keep pouring money into “AI” companies, allowing them to operate at a loss for longer That’s tied to the promise of an actual “intelligence” emerging out of a statistical model.

• Investments stop pouring in, the bubble bursts and companies need to make money out of LLMs in their current state. To do that, they need to massively cut costs and monetize. I believe that’s called enshttificarion.

I didn’t say anything different. If the last thing you bought from Apple was their stock, Tim Cook made it what it is. As a CEO that’s his primary goal, so he is a great CEO.

A company that is now focused more on creating value for shareholders than on innovation? I’d say that’s pretty accurate.