Or worse. I’ve heard stories from friends where leadership expects huge boosts in productivity due to LLMs, and perceive anything but an order of magnitude boost as incompetence or a refusal to adapt.
To be fair, some of it might genuinely be refusal to adapt? If we go by HN comments, there definitely do seem to be at least some people who are letting their hangups prevent them from learning this tech.
> It can't think, it just predicts likely tokens
> I can't believe this industry I once cherished for rational professionalism has fallen for nondeterministism
> Sorry, I'm just not going to participate in destroying the planet with these power hunger DCs
> All this stuff actually costs 10x what a human developer costs but they're dumping the service at a low price to make us dependent.
> It's a bubble, or a scam, in a year or two everything will go back to normal.
Tell me sentiments like these don't get bandied about by devs who want to keep doing things the way they know and like.
I just don't want to use it. It may or may not be a big deal, I lean toward it not being, but even if it is I would prefer not to use it, so I'm going to resist it as far as possible. I don't pretend it's about any higher principle than me not liking it. I'll wait to get put on a PIP and then I'll do exactly what they ask.
Shipping speed never/is was the issue. Most companies are terrible at figuring out what exactly they should be allocating resources behind.
Speeding up does not solve the problem that most humans who are at the top of the hierarchy are poor thinkers. In fact it compounds it. More noise, nice.
Apple has already shown this decades ago - they got the iPhone and iPod developed and out the door in relatively short-time scales given the impact of the products on the world.
Once you know what you want, exactly what you want, things moves fast - really fast.
Lol yeah. Much of the issues re. lack of productivity comes from management who dont have the ability to focus+clarity+confidence of where to go and also create the environment to get the max out of people.
How many of those users are paying? Where is the profit? How many users will be willing to use ChatGPT if they had to pay? Might have to pull out the questions like its 2026.
Most people will stick to the free product. Claude isn't free and not widely known beyond tech circles. Gemini, despite being good, also has a marketing problem and most non technical users still default to chatgpt.com for their day to day AI usage but that can change as Google redirects users to Gemini from so many surfaces it owns
You’ve described a technology, not a solution to a clearly articulated problem that customers actually have. The problem that you have described is vague, and it’s unclear that it’s actually a problem at all. Finally, you don’t provide a persuasive and concrete argument about how your eventual solution—whatever that may be—will solve it.
I don’t mean to be so presumptuous as to teach Grampa how to suck eggs, but I think Amazon’s working backwards process is instructive.
Hey, is JJ compatibility in the cards? Considering the blog article hints at a goal of a developerless agent-to-agent automation platform I'm guessing developer conveniences are a side quest rn?
On a related note, Discord recently announced ID verification for users. Matrix might become a viable option for those who want to opt out of Discord for their "circles" of friends.
Well personally, I like to have organized chat rooms or "channels". Matrix is closer to a user friendly IRC client. Signal is great for group chats but some people are looking to have organized chat rooms for their friends.
Someone will eventually ask "why not just use IRC?" and the answer is simply: Would your non-tech-inclined friends enjoy doing that?
Imagine the powerhouse America would be (pun intended) if we subsidized nuclear energy to become the defacto producer of nuclear power plants world wide. Sometimes it is easier said than done but this really is as easy as said.
Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason nuclear is expensive is because of how costly the facilities are to build and maintain. If we were not setback during the anti-nuclear era, we would have gained economies of scale. The reason why solar is so cheap is for the exact same reason is it not? I am not an expert on this topic so take everything I say with a massive grain of salt as I am willing to be wrong on this.
Edit: After further reading it appears that solar will be the defacto affordable option in energy production, even with SMRs and streamlined construction in the picture. Perhaps a mix of renewables, better battery infra, and SMRs for stable sources of power is the future.
Power plants with high capex like nuclear have a hard time competing in a market where power is essentially free when it’s sunny or windy. Running something like a nuclear power plant only for a few hundred hours a year when it’s neither sunny nor windy is too expensive compared to (hydrogen) gas peakers (or other forms of storage)
nuclear can compete if we re-learn to build on time and on budget. Japanese abwr did cost 3bn and done in <4y. China does the same now for cheaper.
There's no such thing as free hydrogen, nor it will be
Even in China the case for nuclear isn't overwhelming. They are building a lot of nuclear relative to the rest of the world but its not that much compared to how much wind and solar they are deploying.
Yes. Mostly because of inland ban. Costwise their nuclear is extremely cheap, probably even cheaper than ren, but it's harder to scale (or unwillingness). But per capita they don't even match french deployments during messmer or swedish bwr units during peak
No. They are afraid to pollute downstream. Nuclear doesn't require that much water. Worstcase you can even deploy dry cooling or wastewater like palo verde
The US gave the nuclear industry a chance for a nuclear renaissance with the subsidies they asked for towards the AP1000. The industry whiffed big time. Looks like nuclear will get another chance with the increased subsidies begun under Biden, the deregulatory approach of Trump and the huge demand spike in electricity. Its an open question on whether they'll be able to deliver.
The US is in a bit better position on more nuclear than Europe, because the EPR was an overdesigned mess, while the AP1000 was just badly executed. The AP1000 is actually quite a nice design (it actually has a completed design now). The Chinese are offering a version of it for sale abroad; they tried the EPR too and have done nothing more with it.
If the US is for some reason to do nuclear going forward, just building AP1000s would probably be the least insane way to do it. These SMRs? Maybe investigatory builds but don't count on anything.
I admit I thought the fiascos that the 2 AP1000 projects were would forever kill the design in the US. But it now looks like the AI craze will give it another shot.
This isn't a direct answer to your question because I am not OP and I do not know what docs they read but there is a book out called "Game Boy Coding Adventure: Learn Assembly and Master the Original 8-Bit Handheld" that came out last year.
Awesome, I've been getting more into messing with the nuts and bolts of my childhood Gameboy Color, one project I want to eventually do is to recreate it with modern hardware, and then take something similar to GB Studio and embed it into the hardware so I can read cartridges straight to a custom built clone. I've seen some impressive clones already like FPGBC but I would love to build my own. It's a slow burn project, but I also am fascinated by emulators for the platform as well.
reply