The economic question is whether the average company will have the time or talent to roll their own models instead of eating the cost increases. The firms in question are exactly the same that have already decimated their teams. Can they so quickly pivot to self-hosted models if their AI workloads suddenly cost them 10x more? I bet most will simply start shoveling themselves deeper.
It is really beautiful to see distilled to the core algorithm. Despite AK’s claim that everything else is simply optimization, I am sure there’s a bit more to training a useful frontier model! Still, an excellent teaching tool and nice way to spend an afternoon walking through the code.
While true, it's still a user-hostile move. You kinda have to meet your customers where they are. If people are clicking ads without knowing it, that's a serious design problem. Yes, people should learn to read, but the risk of placing too much burden on users is that all it takes is one ambitious product manager to push an A/B test that generates huge revenue wins while enshittifying the product for everyone else.
> You need to know that your data and conversations are protected and never sold to advertisers.
> we plan to test ads at the bottom of answers in ChatGPT when there’s a relevant sponsored product or service based on your current conversation.
There is a severe disjoint between these two statements: the advertiser now knows what your conversation was about! This gives a lot of leverage to ad campaigns to design the targeting criteria very specifically crafted to identify the exact behavioral and interest segments they want.
If you’re referring to body shop consulting agencies this may be true, but IME as an IC consultant in DS/ML, my rates are well above Staff+ at FAANG, and nobody has ever tried to leetcode interview me. Yes, I have to do a lot of smooth talking, but performance is extremely transparent: if I don’t deliver, I don’t get paid. Honestly I doubt I could pass a leetcode style interview, and I’m glad I don’t have to do that anymore.
You're right, of course, there are suitable alternatives that work well. There are some things that will just be easier to manage such as Parental controls, backups, and Family features. Additionally, I've lost basic tech support skills on iOS. Part of my motivation for originally switching to android was to gain familiarity with the ecosystem, but now I've fallen behind on the iOS world and can barely use my kid's ipad.
I lean towards your viewpoint as well. Their assumptions (axioms, postulates?) are highly controversial, while the actual principles seem quite sound to me.
The only issue I can see is with #5. I would argue for decision making, you absolutely need a single metric, otherwise the process collapses into bickering over which measure is more important at the time (often for political or interpersonal reasons). The point is a bit vague on what exactly is being evaluated (product quality, which means what?). For launching products or running A/B tests, aim for a single metric as your decision framework. If you must have more than one, then be explicit about the tradeoffs in a flowchart: e.g., "if X is > 0, we launch. If x <= 0, but y > 2%, we launch, otherwise no launch".
There are too many insightful and thoughtful points in your comment for a single upvote to repay, so I must thank you with a reply. Becoming so demoralized with the present media and political landscape, it is comforting to find that there still remain semblances of reason for which I may again briefly restore some measure of sanity. Thank you.
Bluff? Putin wants to live out his golden years in unabated luxury after anointing a loyal successor. If he nukes the entire world, he will live in squalor and misery while being hunted by the entire human race. He won't do it. Me hopes. Me also hopes someone in his inner circle gets a nice clean view of the back of his head and does the world a favor.
Any recommendations for best practices in "modern C++"? I have to resurrect an old codebase and would like to refactor it using more modern idioms, but its been a loooong time since I wrote any decent c++.
No. Equating internal teams with paying customers is the very attitude that is causing these problems. Encouraging teams to think about their "internal customers" leads those customers to become entitled. We work together in the same company, our relationship is not the same as with actual external paying customers. I can't tell a paying customer that they're being unreasonable or lazy or unrealistic. We absolutely should be able to have that conversation with other internal teams when appropriate.
The post is describing the situation that has evolved as a result of QA being phased out. Telling Ops to suck up that extra work because "Dev are your users" is exactly why the post was written.
It's actually a very low risk investment. The HOA is suing the city, blaming the construction of the Transbay terminal next door. They have access to some serious attorneys, so if the building falls down they'll still profit.
> It levels the playing field a bit, in the sense that code is more objective than an interviewer's notes
Except that writing code in a Google doc on the phone doesn't in any way resemble the real "playing field". I grant that it's level in that everyone faces the same constraints, but to write code in a gdoc with red squiggly lines underneath every keyword, automatic capitalization after a dot, and variable width font? How does that give you any kind of useful assessment? It's like handing a butter knife and some twine to a doctor and saying "here, show me how you'd stitch up this wound".
Thanks for the tips! One mantra I've tried when starting at a new job is "for the first 3 months say yes to everything, for the next 3 months say no to everything." The idea is you first immerse yourself in everything, to find out what works and what doesn't. Then you dedicate time to fix the broken processes so that hopefully when you hit 6 months your team is better positioned to be more efficient. Obviously you can't be too rigid, but it seemed to work for me when I had buy in. Curious if you think that approach sounds good.
This is so eerily familiar I swear I've had many of these exact conversations word for word. The only way this doesn't turn into a complete nightmare of a cluster is if the exec team "gets it". If so, you just might stand a chance at building a data team that gels with the rest of the org.
But if the exec team simply hired you for window-dressing, expect to be treated like a scapegoat and a punching bag. Any mistakes will be your fault. Any wins will be to the credit of the business. The Director of Product will ask to "embed" dedicated DS headcount and you won't have any real power to shape the roadmap. If the exec team doesn't give you equal footingf with Product (or Marketing, Finance, and Eng for that matter) then this will rapidly become a soul-sucking job. However, if E-team does give you the authority to call Product's bullshit, and tell Finance to stuff it, and not take direction from Eng leads, then you actually might be able to accomplish something really cool.
The problem is that the average voter will not understand that distinction. They will be persuaded to vote against environmental protections because of the doubt cast on "climate change". My original point was about the framing of the debate in the public sphere. In an effort to be pedantically correct, we've handed the opposition the upper hand by allowing them to reframe the debate away from the scary word of pollution.
It used to be called "pollution". Reframing the topic as global warming or climate change was a dedicated effort to soften the language and introduce room for doubt. I mean, everyone agrees that pollution sounds bad and is bad and we should stop doing it. But by calling it climate change, suddenly there's now an avenue to challenge its legitimacy, and shift attention onto the ideological debates. Meanwhile, as everyone is distracted, industry gets a free pass to continue polluting with zero consequences.
But were they really your choices? Everyday you wake up constrained by what someone who is no longer you did yesterday. Nobody is responsible for anything. I mean that philosophically of course. Give yourself a break. I recognize your name from many threads here and believe it you have made a difference. Though I don't know you personally, your words could as well be mine, so I know whereof I speak. You are not missing anything by choosing not to run in the rat race. Retirement is overrated. I will regret everything on my death bed, but that would be true no matter how I lived. To face its closure is regret enough.
The "infinite backlog of work" is the problem. It will be used as an excuse to ding you on your next performance review. Th fact that companies are structured to ensure that there is always too much work for anyone to do is what leads to stress and burnout.