Twitter is not a public square controlled by a socialist government – it is a private company in a capitalist economy for the purpose of making money through advertising. Twitter has ZERO interest in promoting the public good.

Congressmembers would have better expertise on tech matters if the Office of Technology Assessment still existed. It was defunded in 1995 under Newt Gingrich’s “Contract to America” plan, because it was an unbiased organization that wouldn’t cow to political narratives. The Chew hearing is one of many instances that highlight both why Newt wanted to defund it, and why eliminating the agency was a detriment to politicians. (Ironically, Newt suggested shortly after the midterms that Republicans should come around to using TikTok to court young voters, despite the allegations of the app’s security risk.) Hopefully, someone in Congress will introduce legislation aimed at reviving the OTA somewhere down the line.

"The industrial revolution made the production of an instrument like [the piano] possible. Several planks of wood - six I think in this case - are overlaid and pressed into shape by tremendous force for six months. Nature is molded into shape. Many tons of force and pressure are applied, making the strings what they are. Matter taken from nature is molded by human industry, by the sum strength of civilization. Nature is forced into shape. Interestingly, the piano requires re-tuning. We humans say, 'It falls out of tune', but that's not exactly accurate - matter is struggling to return to a natural state. The tsunami, in one moment, became a force of restoration. The [tsunami-damaged] piano re-tuned by nature actually sounds good to me now. In short, the piano is tuned by force to please our ears or ideals; it's a condition that feels natural to us humans. But from nature's perspective, it's very unnatural. I think deep inside me somewhere, I have a strong aversion to that."

The whole nature vs civilization narrative, is a story told by happy regressors, who want to return to a ilusionary before time, were all things were harmony and civilization was not. It is of course, a call for mass murder on billions of humans with the rumbling instincts from the brain stem and guts as justification. Were it justified with any other argument, civilized society would tear them to shreds, but in the robe of the shaman, they are exempt from the duty of reasoning.None the less, his music is great and can be enjoyed, like any other artists, without listening to the political and culture drivel that artists sadly often produce. They are easily captured and swayed by instinct tautological ideologies.Just because it feels right does not mean it to be true.My favorite rendition of his "My love wears forbidden colors"

This is reflected in their name: a “language model” implies that they are tools for working with language. That’s what they’ve been trained to do, and it’s language manipulation where they truly excel. Want them to work with specific facts? Paste those into the language model as part of your original prompt! There are so many applications of language models that fit into this calculator for words category: Summarization. Give them an essay and ask for a summary. Question answering: given these paragraphs of text, answer this specific question about the information they represent. Fact extraction: ask for bullet points showing the facts presented by an article. Rewrites: reword things to be more “punchy” or “professional” or “sassy” or “sardonic”—part of the fun here is using increasingly varied adjectives and seeing what happens. They’re very good with language after all! Suggesting titles—actually a form of summarization. World’s most effective thesaurus. “I need a word that hints at X”, “I’m very Y about this situation, what could I use for Y?”—that kind of thing. Fun, creative, wild stuff. Rewrite this in the voice of a 17th century pirate. What would a sentient cheesecake think of this? How would Alexander Hamilton rebut this argument? Turn this into a rap battle. Illustrate this business advice with an anecdote about sea otters running a kayak rental shop. Write the script for kickstarter fundraising video about this idea.

A flaw in this analogy: calculators are repeatable Andy Baio pointed out a flaw in this particular analogy: calculators always give you the same answer for a given input. Language models don’t—if you run the same prompt through a LLM several times you’ll get a slightly different reply every time.

Coming back to the internet analogy, how did Google, Amazon etc ended up so successful? Metcalf’s law explains this. It states that as more users join the network, the value of the network increases thereby attracting even more users. The most important thing here was to make people join your network. The end goal was to build the largest network possible. Google did this with search, Amazon did this with retail, Facebook did this with social.

Collecting as much data as possible is important. But you don’t want just any data. The real competitive advantage lies in having high-quality proprietary data. Think about it this way, what does it take to build an AI system? It takes 1) data, which is the input that goes into the 2) AI models which are analogous to machines and lastly it requires energy to run these models i.e. 3) compute. Today, most AI models have become standardized and are widely available. And on the other hand, the cost of compute is rapidly trending to zero. Hence AI models and compute have become a commodity. The only thing that remains is data. But even data is widely available on the internet. Thus, a company can only have a true competitive advantage when it has access to high-quality proprietary data.

Recently, Chamath Palihapitiya gave an interview where he had this interesting analogy. He compared these large language models like GPT to refrigeration. He said “People that invented refrigeration, made some money. But most of the money was made by Coca-Cola who used refrigeration to build an empire. And so similarly, companies building these large models will make some money, but the Coca-Cola is yet to be built.” What he meant by this is that right now there are lot of companies crawling the open web to scrap the data. Once that is widely available like refrigeration, we will see companies and startups coming up with proprietary data building on top of it

The success of frozen pizza, in general, and Minnesota’s Totino’s company, in particular, caught his eye and he wanted to move quickly into that arena. He would, of course, develop his own frozen pizza, but Paulucci had another idea. Chun King churned out thousands of mini egg rolls per day and Jeno figured that an egg roll wrapper could be filled with just about anything. He told his vice president of research and development to turn this idea into reality. The VP, in turn, assigned the task to Beatrice (Luoma) Ojakangas, by coincidence, the older sister of the engineer who had developed the egg roll machine for Chun King.

If the general feeling toward pizza rolls in the 2020s is that they’re for busy kids or stoned adults (as is the consensus in those Reddit discussions explaining the food to non-Americans, which I think tracks with the broader cultural understanding of who eats them today), in the 1960s, they were something different: a new and nifty treat you could serve as a canapé.

In many ways, then, pizza rolls are the perfect American food: a slightly ridiculous and nontraditional dish that pulls from multiple cultural sources outside this country. Their very existence, and the way in which they’re sold, symbolizes the abundance of the USA—its richness of cultures, its excess of resources, its delight in just kinda making things up and seeing if they work.

American food, as a broad-brush concept, is defined not by a specific set of dishes or flavors but by its incredible variety. Obviously—obviously—you can find lots of tasty food in the USA and plenty of regional specialties. But many of those local delicacies have faded away over the years, and as a nation, our signature thing is that you can get, for example, dozens of kinds of orange juice at any time of the year and hundreds of yogurt flavors, and seemingly every grocery store and strip mall has foods that originated in various far-off corners of the world.

inveterate

Software is misunderstood. It can feel like a discrete thing, something with which we interact. But, really, it is the intrusion into our world of something very alien. It is the strange interaction of electricity, semiconductors, and instructions, all of which somehow magically control objects that range from screens to robots to phones, to medical devices, laptops, and a bewildering multitude of other things. It is almost infinitely malleable, able to slide and twist and contort itself such that, in its pliability, it pries open doorways as yet unseen.

the clearing price for software production will change. But not just because it becomes cheaper to produce software. In the limit, we think about this moment as being analogous to how previous waves of technological change took the price of underlying technologies—from CPUs, to storage and bandwidth—to a reasonable approximation of zero, unleashing a flood of speciation and innovation. In software evolutionary terms, we just went from human cycle times to that of the drosophila: everything evolves and mutates faster.

A software industry where anyone can write software, can do it for pennies, and can do it as easily as speaking or writing text, is a transformative moment. It is an exaggeration, but only a modest one, to say that it is a kind of Gutenberg moment, one where previous barriers to creation—scholarly, creative, economic, etc—are going to fall away, as people are freed to do things only limited by their imagination, or, more practically, by the old costs of producing software.

We have almost certainly been producing far less software than we need. The size of this technical debt is not knowable, but it cannot be small, so subsequent growth may be geometric. This would mean that as the cost of software drops to an approximate zero, the creation of software predictably explodes in ways that have barely been previously imagined.

Entrepreneur and publisher Tim O’Reilly has a nice phrase that is applicable at this point. He argues investors and entrepreneurs should “create more value than you capture.” The technology industry started out that way, but in recent years it has too often gone for the quick win, usually by running gambits from the financial services playbook. We think that for the first time in decades, the technology industry could return to its roots, and, by unleashing a wave of software production, truly create more value than its captures.

Software production has been too complex and expensive for too long, which has caused us to underproduce software for decades, resulting in immense, society-wide technical debt.

technology has a habit of confounding economics. When it comes to technology, how do we know those supply and demand lines are right? The answer is that we don’t. And that’s where interesting things start happening. Sometimes, for example, an increased supply of something leads to more demand, shifting the curves around. This has happened many times in technology, as various core components of technology tumbled down curves of decreasing cost for increasing power (or storage, or bandwidth, etc.).

Suddenly AI has become cheap, to the point where people are “wasting” it via “do my essay” prompts to chatbots, getting help with microservice code, and so on. You could argue that the price/performance of intelligence itself is now tumbling down a curve, much like as has happened with prior generations of technology.

it’s worth reminding oneself that waves of AI enthusiasm have hit the beach of awareness once every decade or two, only to recede again as the hyperbole outpaces what can actually be done.

Without preconceptions — without having already half-templated and half-mapped the world we are trying to perceive and navigate — we would have to evaluate afresh every smallest object our attention falls upon.

Most facts in consciousness seem to be partly made. A report is the joint product of the knower and known, in which the role of the observer is always selective and usually creative. The facts we see depend on where we are placed, and the habits of our eyes.

For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture.

They did what worked in the past, or what they had decided would work — and failed to grasp that the circumstances had shifted so that a previously successful strategy was no longer so. People failed to see what the world was telling them when that message wasn’t one they wanted to hear. They liked being the rulers of their environment. When the environment knew more than they did — well, that was no good at all. Here was the cruel truth: we humans too often think ourselves in firm control when we are really playing by the rules of chance.

When I’m writing, especially if it’s going well, I’m living in two different dimensions: this life I’m living now, which I enjoy very much, and this completely other world I’m inhabiting that no one else knows about.

organic startup ideas usually don't seem like startup ideas at first. We know now that Facebook was very successful, but put yourself back in 2004. Putting undergraduates' profiles online wouldn't have seemed like much of a startup idea. And in fact, it wasn't initially a startup idea. When Mark spoke at a YC dinner this winter he said he wasn't trying to start a company when he wrote the first version of Facebook. It was just a project. So was the Apple I when Woz first started working on it. He didn't think he was starting a company. If these guys had thought they were starting companies, they might have been tempted to do something more "serious," and that would have been a mistake.

There are only so many degrees of freedom for users inside of these apps, which makes them simple to use. But this simplicity also strips away so much of the freedom we have during in-person interactions. You can type any message, but typing a message is all you can do. You can call any person, but talking directly into your camera is all you can do once you're connected. Without spatial interfaces, our current software doesn't give us much expressive control.

In social applications, spatial software has at least three advantages. These three advantages often overlap and bleed into each other.Afforded Intuition: Our natural understanding of space makes spatial software easier to use.Expressiveness: In a spatial interface, more degrees of freedom mean users can interact more creatively with software and with each other.Presence: In many spatial interfaces, we can sense other users through the presence of an avatar or figure.

The most basic way to understand spiritual bypass is that it's using your spirituality, spiritual states, or spiritual practice as excuses for not addressing harm and suffering experienced in the material or real world.

It's not just having to commit your ideas to specific words that makes writing so exacting. The real test is reading what you've written. You have to pretend to be a neutral reader who knows nothing of what's in your head, only what you wrote.

You can know a great deal about something without writing about it. Can you ever know so much that you wouldn't learn more from trying to explain what you know? I don't think so.

A cat is content to be a cat. […] Nothing is more at home in the world than a cat. Flowers, compared to a cat, seem too assertive, even vulgar — their peculiar colors, their showy shapes. Sprawled in sunlight, a cat dissolves, pours free of its shape, and becomes one with the ground. Sliding along your leg, it gives you a sense of fusion. A cat makes itself one with anything. It is at home in the world. A cat defines a home.

Face-to-face with a cat, you see almost no mouth. Its expression is unforthcoming, uncommunicative. Eyes and ears. A tiny, cool, exquisite nose. Without much mouth, the face seems uninterested in eating, and the eyes seem large and salient, as though a cat wants only to observe, to know things. A cat’s whiskers, like exquisite antennae, read the airiest messages.

You look at a cat, and it looks at you. You have the scary idea that a cat is a kind of person. You look more carefully and let the cat’s eyes tell you what it sees. It sees you are a kind of cat. A cat always looks into your eyes, as if it knows that you see it with your eyes. As if it knows? What a mad idea. A cat doesn’t even know it has eyes, let alone know that it is seeing you with its eyes. And yet it knows, it knows.

When it comes to loneliness, a cat is excellent company. It is a lonely animal. It understands what you feel. A dog also understands, but it makes such a big deal of being there for you, bumping against you, flopping about your feet, licking your face. It keeps saying, “Here I am.” Your loneliness then seems lugubrious. A cat will just be, suffering with you in philosophical silence.

The tail of a cat lashes, curls, and swishes slowly. It stands straight up. It vibrates. It blooms before battle and looks three times thicker. It is a flag of feelings — courage, shame, pleasure, fear. It can become the hook of a sickle, or a shepherd’s crook, or a rod, or a plume, or an S, and it can press down to seal a cat’s heinie. It is the poetry and prose of a cat. When a cat is thoughtful, the tail moves like a part of the mind. It is a moody river, a smokey flow. It is a sentence, the material shape of an idea. It is an announcement, a revelation, and an artistic gesture, beautiful even if only to express boredom.

My advice to people when they are thinking about instituting a new process is to go to a whiteboard2 and write down the answer to this question: “If you could only get one thing done this year, what would it be?”. If that answer is “institute some new process”, go for it. But if it’s something like “increase market share from 30% to 60%” or “launch this new product that will 2x our TAM”, don’t waste your time on anything else. Just take your best person (up to and including the CEO), make them responsible for solving that problem, and give them everything and everyone they need to make it happen.

We still believe that "if our hope is to create software with feeling, it means inviting people in to craft it for themselves — to mold it to the contours of their unique lives and taste.” And we have a few thoughts on how to make that happen, but if you know us, you know that the prompt is almost always more interesting than the answer.

i don't even really care if the answer is right, as long as the person i'm talking to can talk about complexity cogently. if i'm interviewing for an entry-level position, i don't even really care about that, we can teach it, it's not that hard.

Anecdotally I have noticed junior engineers being increasingly difficult to work with since many of them are leetcode drones who have issues working and figuring things out on their own. They got really good at passing 'the test' but did not develop many other skills relating to technology and many times do not really have an outside interest in it beyond being able to get a job.

in the article they're talking about how live-coding is inherently harder for people who have been working in the industry longer. which sounds.....not right? like why would more experience with coding make you worse at interviewing? it's because these interviews filter for people who spend their free time practicing coding prompts and algorithms for fun. and people who work 9-5 jobs and have lives outside of work just don't do that, so they're inherently going to be worse at these type of interviews.

Meaningful additions to the world rest on novel connections among pre-existing concepts, objects and situations, not self-indulgent originality for its own sake. What we glorify as flashes of brilliance are usually astute observations about the world, improved by critical thinking and critique. And observations often begin from a question.

because many of us have been rewarded and praised for having right answers and clever ideas, in school as well as in professional life, the questioning and critiquing part of design can get very uncomfortable.

A quick and effective fix is to stop brainstorming ideas with your team, and start brainstorming questions instead. Getting together and listing every question you can think of about a problem, a process, or a situation is uncomfortable at first, and then in very short order enhances collaboration, decreases risk and puts you on the path to being a learning organization.