ivraatiems
I always had a high faculty for language, and when I was young, even very young, I was able to speak in full sentences much like I'm doing now. What I didn't have was context. I didn't know how to relate to people socially, and then later on, I wasn't as experienced an engineer as my peers, but I was trying to act adult and mature in both ways.
So I tried to write in ways that were catchy and unnecessarily complex, because I thought that conveyed sophistication and intelligence, and that I knew what I was on about more than I did. It's the kind of writing that gets you through a 30-page final paper for a class you don't really like, or a research project you didn't finish. The term I often use when complaining about my colleagues' LLM output is "flashy but meaningless."
As my confidence grew, I started writing in simpler (though still not the most concise, that's just not who I am!) ways, because it became easier to convey ideas simply in a way that made it obvious I understood them.
When you think about what LLMs are - word machines without (or with very limited) context - you can see why they write the way they do. They are always acting; trying to replicate a human contextual experience with only weights and tokens to carry them through it. That fact is part of why I am skeptical of their ability to suprass humans in reasoning based on their own output.
The 3DS is still a _console_, purpose built and limited in what it can do. It is also approachably easy to find a good one in working order, and still has the vibe of a retro console.
Also, for fun, I suspect.
I don't think the productivity gains from AI can be ignored for contexts like this. It's what they're best at.
I just hope it goes to good uses (more ports of fun games, more interoperability and opennesS) instead of bad ones (firing humans instead of retasking them), and that hope feels faint.
Who is creating the perception of what the product is? Airbnb. Who is making decisions that piss off both groups? Airbnb. But they're also squeezed by the unrealistic expectations of both sides.
I don't see a good way out of this, and the comment section isn't encouraging. People are either "hosts" or "guests" and they only care about the side they relate to.
There's an inherent tension between the person providing the service and the person consuming it that has to do with fairness and leverage; each person always feels they are on the wrong side of the deal. In reality, it is the aribtrator, who sets the rules, who gets the upside of both deals, so they're right, ish, but they blame each othner.
Modality change might expand their usefulness, but I don't think it changes the basic parameters of their operation.
Learning to swim might let you see a coral reef, but it won't turn you into one.
They are thieves who turned their stolen goods into a pretty neat invention.
They are not prophets of the end times or messianic figures bringing in a new age of human relaxation or the biggest trillionaires since Tim Cook and Elon Musk. They are people with one good tool that they think can and should be used to do everything. They won't accept that their tool is just useful, or helpful. They want it to be _more important than the humans and human work it was based on_, and nothing less will do. They want to replace effort and thought with simulacra of both and be applauded for it.
Lest this go down as an anti-AI post: I use AI tools. I use LLMs every day. They are useful... but they can't do on their own what we did not demonstrate how to do first, because they are tools.
I could be wrong, but I don't know that I see this changing.
I also have another one of a similar price coloated in Luxembourg, for reasons which are legal in Luxembourg.
Please take the time to read and edit. Get rid of the emdashes and the pithy little "The quick start lands here. Nothing expires into a paywall." / "Sign up and pay in one flow — checkout follows registration." zingers that are meaningless or already implied.
Please stop allowing pragraphs like this:
> Bounds are per organization — one organization can hold several teams, and its message count is metered across all of them. The monthly allowance is the real limit; the burst ceiling exists only to stop runaway loops and sits far above a normal day’s work.
to appear on pages where you expect humans to read them. They are worse than useless to read.
It's wild that this is an accurate summation of their position here. It's equally wild that a company building and selling a technology as actually useful as an LLM - yes, I think they're useful, sue me - can't begin to think about how to make money with one.
I agree with the article - they'd better hope they are messianic super geniuses, because if not, they're gonna seem real stupid when we have all moved in in a few years. The technology will stay, but that doesn't mean they will.
I am serious, reply here, I'll sell you my onion contract for $4.50. Who's buying?
I come neither to praise AI nor to bury it. This is a case where the tool is useful.
The key is that this is work the attornies themselves do not want to do and which does not require their brains or expertise. It's not just "boring" but a bad use of their time.
It took a human attorney 20-30 minutes on average to manually copy-paste data from these PDFs into a spreadsheet (while also fixing any errors they found in the document and re-checking for quality).
Now, the AI copies everything into the spreadsheet in a small amount of time, and then the human reviews it. It takes maybe ~5-7 minutes to scroll to the appropriate pages in the document, read the lines vs the spreadsheet, and make corrections. So you've gone from 2-3 items an hour to ~8-10 items an hour.
Maybe you could pay someone to develop an OCR/ML application that could do this. But that project would never be profitable, even with the time savings. At the cost of a couple Claude subscriptions, it makes sense.
But now it's comparing already filled columns on a spreadsheet, not copy-pasting every single thing from an (often uncopyable) PDF.
They recently bought a Claude subscription and began using Claude to do the initial read of the documents and output JSON they can import into their internal systems. The work still must be reviewed by an attorney - Claude is nowhere near making the kinds of judgments a lawyer would make about this content - but it has increased their throughput from 2-3 documents an hour to 8-10 documents an hour by killing the busy work.
LLMs have great advantages for this kind of work - but not for decision-making. I just don't see OpenAI ever admitting that.
(I've left some details intentionally vague because this is a very specific area of law and I don't want my friends to be identified without their consent.)
The truth is that given the legal and ethical constraints available, routing is already relatively well-optimized in many places. (There are some places, like China's hybrid civilian-military airspace, where those constraints are extremely nasty and basically make the problem impossible to solve better than it is.)
Aviation tries to solve the fuel consumption problem by designing planes to use less fuel, rather than by flying more optimal routes. There is a massive effort in aviation pretty much all the time to try to use less fuel, for every reason from cost to environmental impact to the relative accessibility of jet fuel now and into the future. It's the reason engines have gotten physically larger; it's a big part of why we don't use supersonic jets anymore as well.
The efforts have been pretty sucessful: https://theicct.org/maximizing-aircraft-fuel-efficiency-desi...
There's no hubris in identifying a problem, and fairly little in thinking you might be able to help solve it, but there's a good bit in imagining nobody else has done it.