As soon as I saw integrated voice+text LLM demos, my first thought was that this was precisely the technology needed to make assistants like Siri not total garbage.
Sure, Apple's version 1.0 will have a lot of rough edges, but they'll be smoothed out.
In a few versions it'll be like something out of Star Trek.
"Computer, schedule an appointment with my Doctor. No, not that one, the other one... yeah... for the foot thing. Any time tomorrow. Oh thanks, I forgot about that, make that for 2pm."
Try that with Siri now.
In a few years, this will be how you talk to your phone.
Or... maybe next month. We're about to find out.
I could see something like Uber or Uber Eats trying to be early on something like this, since they already standardized the ordering for all the restaurants in their app. Scheduling systems are all over the place.
Granted, any third-party integrations would be a significant step up from my simple scenario of "voice and text comprehension" and local device state manipulation.
With some irony, the Hacker News user interface is essentially all just simple text.
A theme in current computer design seems to be: Assume the user doesn't use a text editor and, instead, needs an 'app' for every computer interaction. Like cars for people who can't drive, and a car app for each use of the car -- find a new BBQ restaurant, need a new car app.
Sorry, Silicon Valley, with text anyone who used a typewriter or pocket calculator can do more and have fewer apps and more flexibility, versatility, generality.
Show me an average person who has bought something real w bitcoin (who couldn’t have bought it for less complexity/transaction cost using a bank) and I’ll change my mind
That all seemed to go out the window when companies developed wallets to simplify the process for the average user, and when the prices surged, some started requiring account verification to tie it to a real identity. At that point, it’s just a bank with a currency that isn’t broadly accepted. The idea of digital cash was effectively dead, at least for the masses who aren’t going to take the time to figure out how to use Bitcoin without a 3rd party involved. Cash is simple.
I couldn’t fathom what use Bitcoin could possibly have, but completely overlooked the bad actors that would benefit.
The problem with this line of argument is that LLMs are not new technology, rather they are the latest evolution of statistical language modelling, a technology that we've had at least since Shannon's time [1]. We are way, way past the telegraph era, and well into the age of large telephony switches handling millions of calls a second.
Does that mean we've reached the end of the curve? Personally, I have no idea, but if you're going to argue we're at the beginning of things, that's just not right.
________________
[1] In "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", where he introduces what we today know as information theory, Shannon gives as an example of an application a process that generates a string of words in natural English according to the probability of the next letter in a word, or the next word in a sentence. See Section 3 "The Series of Approximations to English":
https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...
Note: Published 1948.
You’re conveniently forgetting all the things that followed the same trajectory as LLMs and then died out.
Btc is currently like 60k... What does died out mean to you?
Additionally, there's a good reason we moved off deflationary hard currencies and onto inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin acts more like a commodity than a medium of exchange. People tend to buy it, hold it, and then eventually cash out. If I am given a bunch of bitcoin, the incentive is for me not to spend it, but rather keep it close and wait for it to appreciate — what good is a currency that people don't spend?
Also I find it weird when I read that due to its mathematically proven finite supply it is basic economics that gives it value. Value in modern economics is defined as what people are willing to give up to obtain that thing. Right now, people are willing to give up a lot for bitcoin, but mainly because other people are also willing to give up a lot for bitcoin, which gives it value.
It's a remarkable piece of engineering that has enabled this (solving the double spending problem especially), but it doesn't have inherent value in and if itself. There are many finite things in the world that are not valued as highly as bitcoin is. There's a finite number of beanie babies, a finite number is cassette tapes, a finite number of blockbuster coupons...
Gold is similar — should we all agree tomorrow that gold sucks and should never be regarded as a precious metal, then it won't lose its value completely (there's only a finite amount of it, and some people will still want it, e.g. for making connectors). But its current valuation is far higher than it would be for its scarcity alone — people mainly want gold, because other people want gold.
Well, they're not wrong. They are not that useful toys.
(Yes, the "Web" included.)
This is conceptually essentially Moore’s law, but about every 5.5 months. That’s the only thing that matters at this stage.
I watched everyone make the same arguments about the general Internet, and then the Web, then mobile, then Bitcoin. It’s just a toy. It’s not that useful. Is this supposed to be the revolution? It uses too much power. It won’t scale. The technology is a dead end.
The general pattern of improvement to technology has been radically to the upside at an increasing pace parabolically for decades and there’s nothing indicating that this is a break in the pattern. In fact it’s setting up to be an order of magnitude greater impact than the Internet was. At a minimum, I don’t expect it to be smaller.
Looking at early telegraphs doesn’t predict the iPhone, etc.
Optimism is warranted here until it isn’t.