There are only two big instances that work any more, everybody is aware of them including twitter, and they exist only because twitter allows them as a safety valve for upper middle class people who believe that political consumption is a thing that works.
By the grace of Musk, a few thousand* 1) nerds who don't register on any invasive social media and 2) libs with the admirable self-control not to spend all day on twitter yelling about twitter, get a tiny trickle of nitter that can be cut off at will.
Meanwhile, we're on ycombinator.com.
Boycotting is not a thing that works under monopoly (especially with "free" products.) Monopolies boycott you.
-----
[*] I'm making this up, it could literally be hundreds, not even thousands. I don't think nitter has a sane caching strategy, and if it were more than a few users the servers would catch on fire.
Although I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the last nitter instances were being run from "X" headquarters as a project to track and study individual behavior (When do nitter users join X? When people quit X, do they still use nitter? When do people who have X accounts use nitter to conceal what they're looking at? Which accounts are especially popular for nitter users? What are the political opinions and demographics of nitter users, etc...). Or instead of X, it could be feds doing the same thing.
If so, they would have plenty of processor and the real user numbers could be tens or hundreds of thousands.
All the facts are true here, but "design defect" is silly. The entire purpose was to keep a country like the US from exploiting its position, and becoming the "world's reserve currency" which is just a euphemism for running up massive debts to poorer states.
Bretton Woods was sabotaged by the US and the USSR through the single vehicle of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White. Without a Bancor, the entire system simply became a mechanism to exploit the poor.
> No, it's not a stupid reason. Reason is OK, the execution is controversial.
This is a muddled statement. It is a stupid reason to "execute" the act of silently modifying your host file.
If I murder somebody to keep them from stepping on my foot, and the judge says that it's a stupid reason to murder somebody, it's silly to say that the reason is "OK" because it hurts to have one's foot stepped on.
> If you want to see if the prose is any good, read the book.
I don't read complete plot summaries of books that I ever plan to read. That's why I look for "reviews." The only reason it's hard to write a review is because you can't give away the plot, but you have to give a sense of the appeal and the quality of the book. Otherwise, it's just a summary.
I can't know what books are available on the market through introspection. The only way I can know about them is through being informed. I don't want to read a complete plot summary of a book I have yet to read. If the only way I can find out about the existence of books is by having the plot spoiled, that's not optimal.
edit: Also, tbh, if a book's plot is good, I don't need you to tell it to me. The person who came up with the plot already carefully came up with the way they wanted to tell it to me. Not sure why you think you can do better if you think the book is good. If the book is awful to read but the plot is interesting, feel free.
> It is a good book by the way.
The reason this doesn't work as a review is because I don't know you, and I don't know what you like. If you can say this in a way in which it doesn't matter whether I know you or what you like, and give away the least plot possible to accomplish this, you've written what most people are looking for in a review.
Agreed, and plot itself doesn't make a good book either. Some have very interesting plots but terrible prose and pacing while others are vice versa. Therefore a "review" that is merely a plot summary actually says nothing of the quality of the work.
> The thing is, agents aren’t going away. So if Bob can do things with agents, he can do things.
But Bob can't do things with agents.
He can get a project from someone else and ask the agents to do that project. Then give the output of the agents back to that someone else, and that someone else reviews it, says why it's wrong, and sends it back. Bob feeds the review to the agents, gets something back, then gives the output back to that someone else who reviews it, etc. So,
1) The loop requires his advisor to know how to go about doing the thing.
2) Bob is absolutely unnecessary and should be discarded.
3) Alice will eventually be qualified to be an advisor.
edit: And the crisis that the article is really pointing out is that when the advisor is using the LLM (while Bob is driving an Uber), and his productivity goes way up because he's only handling the things only he can handle, what about Alice?
Let's say that pre-AI the advisor could either do the job in 2 months or assign it to Alice who could do it in 12 with a week of the advisor's supervision/review. Now, with the LLM, the advisor can do the job in 2 weeks without Alice. Before, Alice made barely any money and had no health insurance. After, Alice is also driving Uber.
Now the advisor has a heart attack and now the thing just can't be done. Also, Ubers become pretty much self-driving, so Bob and Alice are not only ignorant, but unemployed. They can't even afford to take an Uber.
It's a kind of corruption referred to as "self-dealing."
As directors of LibreOffice, they should be looking for the best deals for LibreOffice. Contractors (or any employee) are always (logically and reasonably) looking to do the least amount of work possible for the most compensation possible, so if as a director you use yourself as a contractor, your duty opposes your interests.
And if on the one hand you're being paid a flat salary (or no salary at all) for making decisions for LibreOffice; and on the other hand the worse the contracts you make with yourself are for LibreOffice, the more income you will receive, plunder is absolutely inevitable.
This is exacerbated even more with some nonprofit who is answering to an amorphous public who is funding it. They have no way of stopping you, other than withdrawing entirely.
I have no idea what this flood of personal-use software is that you think normal people want to produce. Normal people don't even think about software doing a thing until they see an advertisement about software that does a thing. And then they'd rather pay 10 bucks for it than to invent a shittier version of it themselves for $500.
And I'm not being condescending about normal people. Developers often don't think about the possibility of making software that does a particular thing until they actually see software that does that thing. And they're going to also going to prefer to buy than vibe code unless the program is small and insignificant.
Go look at the numbers from Lovable and Replit and Claude Code and similar companies. Quite staggering.
I myself have run an online community for early-stage startup founders for over a decade. The number of ambitious people who would love to build something but don't know how to code and in the last year or two have started cranking out applications is tremendous. That number is far higher than the number of software engineers who existed before.
That's very much an echo chamber you find yourself in. I'm far away from any technological center and the main use of LLM for people is the web search widget, spell checking and generating letters. Also kids cheating on their homework.
What relevance do either of those claims have to the claim of the comment you are responding to?
Are you trying to imply that having more things means that each of them will be smaller? There are more people than there were 500 years ago - are they smaller, or larger?
Also, the printing press did lead to much longer works. There are many continuous book series that have run for decades, with dozens of volumes and millions of words. This is a direct result of the printing press. Just as there are television shows that have run with continuous plots for thousands of hours. This is a consequence of video recording and production technologies; you couldn't do that with stage plays.
You seem to be trying to slip "smaller in scope" into your statement without backing, even though I'd insist that applications individuals wrote being "smaller in scope" was a obvious consequence of the tooling available. I can't know everything, so I have to keep the languages and techniques limited to the ones that I do know, and I can't write fast enough to make things huge. The problems I choose to tackle are based on those restrictions.
Those are the exact things that LLMs are meant to change.
The average piece written and published today today is much shorter than the average piece from the past. Look at Twitter. Social media in general. Internet forums. Blog posts. Emails. Chats. Etc. The amount of this content DWARFS other content.
The same is true of most things that get democratized. Look at video. TikTok, YouTube, YouTube shorts.
Look at all the apps people are building are building for themselves with AI. They are typically not building Microsoft Word.
Of course there will be some apps that are bigger and more ambitious than ever. I myself am currently building an app that's bigger an more ambitious than I would have tried to build without AI. I'm well aware of this use case.
But as many have pointed out, AI is worse at these than at smaller apps. And pretending that these are the only apps that matter is what's leading developers imo to over-value the importance of code quality. What's happening right now that's invisible to most professional engineers is an explosion in the number of time, bespoke personal applications being quickly built by non-developers are that are going to chip away at people's reasons to buy and use large, bloated, professional software with hundreds of thousands of users.
If you don't believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, you should start by offering your list. If you do believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, then unlimited freedom of contract is a basic freedom for you.
What you shouldn't do is pretend not to understand.
I'm not the one making a positive claim. I haven't even claimed such rights exist so why on earth would be the expectation be that I list them? You've assumed that I believe in this shared fiction.
We sell ourselves into a form of slavery every day. Some would argue that is a big driver of our current society and way of life.
By the grace of Musk, a few thousand* 1) nerds who don't register on any invasive social media and 2) libs with the admirable self-control not to spend all day on twitter yelling about twitter, get a tiny trickle of nitter that can be cut off at will.
Meanwhile, we're on ycombinator.com.
Boycotting is not a thing that works under monopoly (especially with "free" products.) Monopolies boycott you.
-----
[*] I'm making this up, it could literally be hundreds, not even thousands. I don't think nitter has a sane caching strategy, and if it were more than a few users the servers would catch on fire.
Although I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the last nitter instances were being run from "X" headquarters as a project to track and study individual behavior (When do nitter users join X? When people quit X, do they still use nitter? When do people who have X accounts use nitter to conceal what they're looking at? Which accounts are especially popular for nitter users? What are the political opinions and demographics of nitter users, etc...). Or instead of X, it could be feds doing the same thing.
If so, they would have plenty of processor and the real user numbers could be tens or hundreds of thousands.
reply