motoxpro

Dont you want to spend more than 1 hour getting to know the company you might spend the next 5-10 years of your life with?

Give it 8-9 months and all that stuff will be fixed. Given this is 100x better than what we had 8-9 months ago.

Or just put in more than 10 words of effort, e.g. a better prompt and bounding boxed prompt edits, and all that stuff would be fixed now.

They said/did that when the ran sales every two weeks.

Large players always do that, see Walmart, Amazon, etc.

"Your margin is my opportunity" etc etc

Reminded me to go play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip%27s_Challenge again :)

Ah remember the good old days when models couldn't do images with text because it couldn't spell or letter would be borked?

Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.

Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.

They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable.

I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!

Sorry, again, this data proves my point. "Disliked by 28%" is not a majority.

And "Meta" is not the product people use.

Instagram is at 19% disliked. Majority "like" instagram. https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/application/Instagram-Mobile...

BMW is at 14% disliked. Just as another "not everyones cup of tea" brand comparison. https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/brand/BMW

I just don't think people (normies) care. You can dislike a CEO but that doesn't mean you dislike the product or use it less.

"Most Americans Still Like Facebook, Poll Finds—But Not Mark Zuckerberg Or Its New Meta Name"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/11/02/most-am...

Which was my point: CEO affinity =/= the affinity for the product people use

Huh? I would echo the sentiment of you recalibrating what a normie is. This is a crazy take. I would guess that fair amount of people have no idea that Facebook rebranded to Meta, let alone what goes on in and around the company.

Meta products are entertainment, not water and power, comparing them to that is so overblown.

Plenty of people don't use IG or Facebook at all, and plenty of people just go on every now and then and enjoy the experience and leave.

So cool to see someone who loves challenges. Congrats!

From that perspective, every technical blog post from a company is guilty of the same thing.

That was my point. There is nothing that companies do that is NOT to make money. I feel like that would be like saying the Attention is All You Need paper is disengenious because it doesn't explain how it will make Google billions more in search profit.

If that's true, people will leave for bigger libraries and netflix will have to rotate into quantity. That hasn't been the case so far (net flix is killing everyone in terms of subscribers/growth YoY), but doesnt mean it can't be, especially with the paramount merger potentially going through.

I think it's been a little bit proven that it's more about specific shows (friends, seinfeld, how to lose a guy in 10 days, etc) that just mass amount of quantity, but we'll see

I wonder if people were this upset when recsys moved from linear regression to XGBoost.

Why would they not try make money as a business?

Also, if "The Odyssey" is coming out and and you know I love Nolan, and Netflix is getting paid to promote it, would you rather them NOT recommend that to me?

These types of things are natrually constrained. If you send me too many ads, or bad content, I leave. So you are incentived to do a good job.

You could make the argument that you just need to be incrementally better than the other streaming service, but then you are giving away potential advantage and profit.

That's the whole problem. If you have tons (100s of thousands or more) of labels, then you have "structured" data, but how do you correctly classify that scraped item into the correct label?

Putting all the labels into the LLM is super expensive per call when you have millions of items to classify.

You can't reduce the number of labels becasue they are correctly organizes/structured. This class of problem exists in many different domains.

Is there a solution you are using to solve this that is more accurate and cost effective? I'm working through it now so would be curious

The problem with your mental model is that you're thinking the product is "code" when the product is "a finished product"

CC is a horrible product for building a finished website. With CC you still have to host it somewhere. On Vercel, get a DB somewhere or tell it to use SQLite, which no one knows what that is. You have to install it and use a terminal which no one knows how to do. Even if you already know how to code, surely you can imagine a product that is EXACTLY CC but also has hosting, infra, etc built in. e.g. CC + Supabase. You might not use it, but for sure it is easier.

In terms of what products get built and how it's sustainable, think internal tools and what people who can't code would like to build but weren't able to.

Internal tools, things like CreatorIQ is ~$30k a year. It would be nice to make an internal tool just to manage the creators you have and save that money External Projects, A friend built a fantasy leauge for niche sports is making money on it.

I would love to hear the argument as to why CC is better for those two use cases when the products work great, its cheaper than CC (both are subsidizing so that is not a good rebuttal), and there is less maintenance (in the future, you could imagine loveable automatically sweeping projects for deps, security issues, etc)

You should send these out in a newsletter

I think the people who need those abbreviations spelled out are not the target audience of the article. There is no possible way to think that PE == price to earnings/physical education here and if a reader thinks that they wont understand the article anyway. e.g. hamilton helmer, power, fund 12 being a sequoia fund not a different venture firm, etc.

Its OK for articles to be a short few paragraphs with a smaller audience rather than a few long pages and explain every single thing at a basic level to try reach everyone

I guess my point is that until that collapse, returns are very very very good. This can (and probably will) go on for a decent amount of time more, regardless of the inevitable things you point out.

My guess is at least another 2 years, as most people don't use AI yet, or maybe more precisely, AI is not used in the underlying workflows (which are invisible to the consumer) that make up most people's jobs.

Who knows if I am right. My original post was just pointing out that what you say is about timing, not whether it's true or not, because of course its true.

I think more interesting take here would be WHEN this will happen. I don't think Ben, or anyone else, thinks we wont have some sort of correction or stabilization in supply/demand (he has said as much) But when will that occur? 2 months? 2 years? 20 years?

For a tech forum, there is a big lack of imagination as to how tech can help the world here.

You're talking about only the distribution here rather than production, which is a bit different. e.g., making music in a bedroom or using AI to create software increases the total amount of music and software in the world without tackling the question of who sees it.

I'll try to answer that part as well.

Of course, the content/product/output should be legal, but otherwise, who are you (or I) to judge what is quality? Is Wordle not quality because it's not GTA 6? Should I not be able to make a cool flashlight app because one already exists on the phone? I'd much rather a lot of false positives here than false negatives.

Ideally, you have almost no barrier and the proper discovery mechanisms. Allowing everyone to compete. This happens everytime increases in output happen. iPhone video -> more videos -> better discovery mechanisms on Youtube/TikTok/IG. Easier website hosting -> more websites -> web search.

That's why the biggest companies in the world (Google, Meta, Spotify, TikTok) have super low barriers becasue they realized they can't tell what good quality is or not. Most people complain that those platforms should be MORE open, not less. Ironically, I would argue the App Store is a great example of artificial scarcity (one app store with one forced business model) leading to a lower quality experience.

But again, this is all distribution, I can't see a world where I would ever want the creation of positive things to be made more difficult.

I think this is always the mindset of people who are on the “correct” side of the previous technological regime.

Placing artificial constraints on output is always a mistake to me.

For example in music you used to have only a small amount of output because studio time was very expensive so you needed a record deal which only came about by an exec picking you. It meant there was some sort of quality bar on the radio, but it also stifled the creativity of everyone who couldn’t get into the studio.

Fast forward and the radio (or pick your curated channel) still exists but no one listens to it because there is an infinite amount of quality (and not quality! which is OK!) music that got created that fits the taste of the artist that was previously locked out.

More people are trying to be artists, but there are also more artists (music) than any time in history making a living.

Lack of scarcity is good. Universal opportunity means more completion, which makes it difficult, but artificially locking out all the people who who would love to compete is not the solution.

Maybe it’s not a good goal to get a billion people to like you or be on your platform, maybe just having a small handful is OK, and finding a small handful that value your work is now possible for a lot more people even if it makes it harder for a ton of people to value that same work.

I find this hard to believe. All I have to do is give it an example and tell it to go through and add it to the repo and it does it.

A week is fast, no? Would it be faster by hand?

50 hours of work seems like a tiny investment.

Happy that this is being tried. I find it weird, sad, unfortunate, etc. that everyone in tech thinks about scientific discovery and drug discovery as AIs boon to society over education.

Every quality of life metric (life expectancy, income, etc) goes up with better education. I guess it’s because most people in tech grew up in neighborhoods with nice schools and went to college so they don’t think about it.

Anyway, great luck.

They sound cool! Add a few more! :P

This would be amazing! Its such a pain having to set up two payment solutions as a merchant and as a buyer it would be great if I could use my paypal credit on whatever purchase I want. Consumers want paypal and merchant want stripe. I really want this to happen.