Exactly. I think we all have to come to this conclusion ourselves, because the message we’ve been getting from the LLM companies is “sweet user, you DO add value to the LLM, you gave it that custom subagent, remember?”, and then they go and roll that idea into the next version. Once they do that a few times you go “eh why would I bother, this will be a default soon. I’ll just prompt it like normal”.
Nice! Codex’s TTL on 5.6 is, I believe, 30 minutes, and when combined with how generous they are with resets of weekly limits and having completely gotten rid of 5hr limits, means Claude Code is just a total rip off right now. Not to mention their silent Fable nerfing and Chinese fearmongering.
“Seems like it went pretty well if a consulting company is now being started.”
You interpreted this backwards. Software companies offer consulting when their product cannot stand on its own. See Palantir, Salesforce, etc.
They are successful companies, yes, but not successful products. The product needs to be instantiated and maintained by sales engineers and consultants and customized into something so bespoke that it’s hardly the company’s product anymore.
Laws don’t prosecute themselves, and they also don’t tend to remove themselves. Lots of laws, lots of selective enforcement. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” and “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws” are some ideas to ponder here.
Yeah, but the bloat is “correct” per the manufacturer. I view it like car parts or other things where the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) recommends certain things. Besides, they have the most training data and incentive to get their harness working as well as possible with their LLM.
I’m starting to come to the opposite approach: don’t try to customize anything, just use it vanilla, and use the best model you can afford. No AGENTS.md, no special subagents or roles, nothing but a few convenience skills which are really just textexpander. Use the harness that the LLM provider makes, and that’s it.
No, you can’t see ships with this satellite. Too small. Besides, Russia and China have way better satellites that they’ll happily share intel from with Cuba.
Right, but she is not pathologically like the other billionaires. She married a man who became one. Same with Melinda Gates. So I guess our hope is that more billionaires will lust after young Russians or hot newscasters and get divorced, so their normal wives can do what normal people do with more money than they’d even need and help others.
Interesting take. I assume that, because corporations are a subset of “groups of people” that this applies to any group? The theory here being that, in the same way that LLMs produce the average of everything they’ve trained on, a group of people produces the average of every individual’s ideas and efforts (subject to things like some people having more power than others, etc.)?
I don’t think this is always true, however. It’s provably false, actually, because I can name at least one group of people that has done something unique and not sloppy. For example, the C8 Corvette is pretty sweet. So is Costco’s supply chain and employment practices. And I also think Pink Floyd’s music is pretty non-average.
Because papers are often referred to by the first author’s name, and often the first author is the primary researcher and therefore deserves the extra credit. When two or more primary authors are equally involved, they’ll often do a random ordering but annotate this so that no one thinks one did more than the others.
Yeah, and arbitrage. Arbitrage is exploiting the difference in prices of the same asset between two markets. Arbitrage is also risk-free or darn close to it. Entrepreneurship is anything but. Arbitrage is not "gee this product doesn't exist, I'll start a company and invent it and manufacture it and sell it" ...
This article feels like LLM but I can't put my finger on it. It reads like LLM where a human asked an LLM to cover up the LLM-isms. It's odd because the byline of "Drawing on Tyler Cowen & Alex Tabarrok’s Modern Principles of Economics and a century of empirical research." doesn't say who the author is, but the URL root is Alex Tabarrok's profile page.
I feel as though someone (Alex Tabarrok?) said "here's reference material - turn it into an essay".
The footer also feels how an LLM sounds when you tell it to follow specific instructions - they often seem to put too many details about how they did what they did (or how you should feel about it) into their output, kind of how a slimy salesman would explain some fancy shoes and how the cows lived before they were turned into leather:
"Set in Newsreader. Layout and graphics after Edward Tufte — data-ink, direct labels, sidenotes.
Colors after Sanzo Wada, A Dictionary of Color Combinations (1933).
All charts are hand-drawn SVG; all numbers are from the sources above."
Some other clues:
"Rent control doesn’t repeal scarcity. It just deletes the signal that manages it."
"A rent is not merely a bill. It is a message flashed between strangers."
"The gap between those two curves is the shortage." (I find that LLMs often use this format with slightly-misused, yet fancy-sounding words). The X between the Y is the Z. And the best part is, the graph below (which is allegedly "hand-drawn SVG" - hand-drawn by who, I ask) is straight lines, not curves ... that same graph also has the m in market overlapping one of the lines, which is a sloppy mistake an LLM does because it can't see, but a human can and should have seen because it's "hand drawn". How do you hand-draw an SVG that updates with inputs, anyways?
"“Chance and favoritism” was not a rhetorical flourish. It was a prediction about who gets housing when prices can’t decide"
"every fix works by weakening the control, which is the quiet admission at the heart of the policy" - humans don't write like this. I've never heard of a quiet admission at the heart of anything. Woah, interesting, if you search for "quiet admission at the heart of" on Google, you'll get a bunch of other AI articles. Neat, I found another indicator!
It's really quite an interesting topic and there probably is some real research behind it, but dude ... just put a little header at the top saying you used AI to help you write or do graphs and I'll trust you. Hiding it makes me question everything.
There are four distinct firings. Look for the little yellow poofs. The pistons move in pairs for balance (vibrations). Each piston is doing one of the four strokes (suck, squeeze, bang, blow is the crude way to remember) at a given time. None of them are doing the same thing at a given time.
Just use the vanilla settings.