Aren't there more strict laws on marketing imagery being similar to their actual products in Japan? Wonder if that plays into it, or if the photography team was just having fun.
I tried it for a few days and then dropped it. The prompting/memory/context system for OpenClaw chewed tokens and performed subpar for my usecase. I was mostly interested in having AI writing little toy projects. I used pi over ssh instead, and eventually built myself a little mobile-first web UI wrapping pi.
App needs a bit of review, rather buggy, reloads and presents layouts while I’m typing, if I type in something thats not dimensions the error presents and then rotates through seemingly many different responses to other’s prompts? Vibe coding is a tonne of fun but its worth putting it through the wringer before making public :)
Folks are reviewing the code, but the standard shape of a review is a PR. This diff assumes you have an underlying knowledge of the system, one that is most realistically gained by having written the code. Could you “just remember” every diff you’ve seen? Maybe, but I don’t think it’s realistic; we learn far better from doing than from reading.
> There needs to be a business model based on selling the hardware and software, not the data the hardware collects. An architecture where the company that makes the device literally cannot access the data it processes, because there is no connection to access it through.
Genuine Q: Is this business model still feasible? Its hard to imagine anyone other than apple sustaining a business off of hardware; they have the power to spit out full hardware refreshes every year. How do you keep a team of devs alive on the seemingly one-and-done cash influx of first-time-buyers?
I’ve heard something similar: “there are people who enjoy the process, and people who enjoy the outcome”. I think this saying comes moreso from artistic circles.
I’ve always considered myself a “process” person, I would even get hung-up on certain projects because I enjoyed crafting them so much.
LLM’s have taken a bit of that “process” enjoyment from me, but I think have also forced some more “outcome” thinking into my head, which I’m taking as a positive.
I’ve learned that being brutally honest with myself and others regarding what I’m feeling and why has been super helpful.
It _does_ run the risk of sounding childish, but thus far I’ve found the open vulnerability more rewarding than punishing.
Identifying when I’m irritable, I’ll say “I’m grumpy, I’m gonna suck to be around, sorry”. Or when the real reason why I don’t want to do something is just because “I’m feeling shy”, etc.
Its hard to break the whole “men should be stoic” expectation but I’ve found people are remarkably understanding when you’re honest about why you’re feeling what you’re feeling.
Neither do you? None of us do, in fact I’d imagine the people trying for AGI right now would have a better guess than you or I.
> there would be an immediate and total power vacuum caused by the advancements. these advancements would be so huge that it would change the geopolitical equation beyond recognition.
This sounds like you’re assuming someone will flip a switch one day and the most powerful mind in history will be let loose. I’m not sure AGI will advance that fast. We might have alot of incredibly “stupid” iterations of AGIs first, for many years before a clever one rolls around.
> this is intrinsic and unavoidable. it cannot be disproved or denied.
Were all just making assumptions here, I don’t think yours get to be called “intrinsic and unavoidable”.
I understand the concerns here, but if you’re willing to claim the end of the world, I would suggest basing your claims on something, or atleast making your assumptions explicit. E.g. “assuming we achieve AGI, and its equipped to rapidly become more powerful/intelligent than the whole of the human population…)
The way its typically done, AFAIK, is that you train these big models on a breadth of information, hoping that it picks up on the generalities of the information. In the case of LLMs, things like basic inference, for example. You then take these big, general models and “fine tune” them for specific applications, with specific bits of data. This way, you get things like basic inference, and logic, while still having something that can answer specific questions.
Hmm, yea privacy in public is an interesting thought. I don’t think its ridiculous to say you should have _some_ privacy, even in a public space. It feels like the expectation is that you can be physically seen, but beyond that I don’t see how someone loses all facets of privacy, unless you’re assuming a surveillance-state.