Is the main point “let me mathematically prove that it’s impossible to do what I’ve already done 12 times this year?”
Yes, very long workflows with no checks in between will have high error rates. This is true of human workflows too (which also have <100% accuracy at each step). Workflows rarely have this many steps in practice and you can add review points to combat the problem (as evidenced by the author building 12 of these things and not running into this problem)
This looks very cool, will try it out on my next project.
There have been a number of solutions popping up to address this problem, and I think the need is very real. Decomposing these LLM tasks into subtasks seems to be one of the best ways to work around the shortcomings of LLMs in production apps (hallucinations, context window limits, etc). But then you end up with complicated pipelines that are difficult to debug, improve, reason about, etc.
He’s a couple days unemployed and is already producing code that looks like it’s meant to teach people. Very happy to see that! The world will be a better place with more Karpathy educational content.
I'm very happy to see that someone is working on this problem!
At my last startup we had a lot of pain points around financial modeling, and it felt like 80% of the work we were doing in our models was the exact same thing that every other startup was doing, all so that we could model the last 20% that was truly unique to our business. It was also very hard to keep these models up to date, test out multiple scenarios, share models with investors without them immediately going stale, etc. I think there's also a great opportunity for you to look at the data from different startups in order to help give guidance re: best practices (e.g., "80% of startups in your category have a lower conversion rate than you - consider adjusting your expectations").
I've actually considered working on this problem myself, but TBH I have some concerns about the business model (e.g., I think it's going to be challenging to get startups to pay a significant amount of money for this on a recurring basis). I'm happy to see that someone is working on it though, and I'll be rooting for you guys!
There's a reason these scammers choose gift cards as their preferred way to get your money: gift cards have become the easiest way to move large amounts of money while minimizing the chances of getting caught.
Every other business that deals with the transfer of money (banks, for example) is expected to put strong measures in place to make sure that the money is traceable and that they're not helping criminals. Why shouldn't large companies like Target be held to a similar standard?
Moreover, the incentives here are very worrying. Yes this guy got scammed out of $3k, but Target also got $3k in revenue. Without some sort of penalty/punishment, Target is incentivized to do the bare minimum to minimize their PR exposure (which they can do by saying "we take this very seriously and have adopted some new policies" but not really acting on it) but to otherwise allow this to keep happening. As the prevalence of these gift card scams has skyrocketed, so have gift card sales for these large companies.
TapFwd empowers marketers to access and share data with complete control. With TapFwd, marketers form private data sharing alliances with complementary brands to unlock entirely new, mutually beneficial ways to acquire customers.
To learn more about who we are, our engineering culture, and whether this is the right place for you, read our Key Values profile: https://www.keyvalues.com/tapfwd
TapFwd empowers marketers to access and share data with complete control. With TapFwd, marketers form private data sharing alliances with complementary brands to unlock entirely new, mutually beneficial ways to acquire customers.
To learn more about who we are, our engineering culture, and whether this is the right place for you, read our Key Values profile: https://www.keyvalues.com/tapfwd
TapFwd empowers leading marketers to access and share data with complete control. With TapFwd, marketers form private data sharing alliances with complementary brands to unlock entirely new, mutually beneficial ways to acquire customers.
To learn more about who we are, our engineering culture, and whether this is the right place for you, read our Key Values profile: https://www.keyvalues.com/tapfwd
TapFwd empowers leading marketers to access and share data with complete control. With TapFwd, marketers form private data sharing alliances with complementary brands to unlock entirely new, mutually beneficial ways to acquire customers.
To learn more about who we are, our engineering culture, and whether this is the right place for you, read our Key Values profile: https://www.keyvalues.com/tapfwd
Hey - I'm the author of the article. AngelPad's terms are pretty similar to YC's old terms: ~7% in exchange for a small investment, plus a more substantial convertible note.
We were hoping that they wouldn't mind since we made it very clear that we were not affiliated with them.
Yes, it's true, they probably would not have cared as much if we weren't using their name and referring to their logo. But ultimately we were a service that sold Amazon gift cards, so it was always going to be up to them if they wanted to let us continue to exist or not. We decided to give it a shot and see what happened.
How could this possibly result in Bitcoins going up? Even if this is handled without any hiccups, this should shake a lot of people's faith (myself included).
This should be a wakeup call for anyone that thinks that Bitcoins are totally secure. What if next time the bug in the client is more exploitable? Someone malicious could potentially take out the entire Bitcoin economy in one day by exploiting it.