Can HN have a tag for open-weight vs closed-source models please? The progress is nice, but if it is not released at least in papers or open-weight? These are just ads?
It is a fair criticism from a purely objective and "means to an end" point of view of Software Engineering, but for a lot of people it is also a passion.
Personally, based on over a decade of professional software engineering experience at all sort of organisations, from small startups, Government, big tech, financial services of all scale.
In terms of literature, you can look into "enshiftication" as a starting point into research around cost savings and value extraction in business.
Also, about 7 years ago, I had some ideas about how AI will pan out, and here is the releveant excerpt from it:
> [S]oftware development industry, the very workhorse of automation and tools of efficiency is eating itself away. The outward image may look very different with the software development becoming an integral part of more and more industries, yet, the number of developers required for a project of given complexity is reducing at unimaginable rate.
It is helpful not to make unbecoming remarks. I know it is hard times for a lot of people in tech but it is important to remain mindful and separate your disagreement with the message from the messenger.
Despite your very poor remark in a sibling comment, I will respond with benefit of the doubt that you're just unhappy with the message and don't intend to be a prick.
You ask how are the numbers derived? Well, the numbers are not derived. My point is that an equilibrium exists where business is happy to pay y/x for 99.99 instead of y for 99.999; what is the actual value of x depends on specific enterprise and markets. What we know is that such x is no longer long term, let alone a theoretical proposition, but something approachable in the short term.
So to answer your question. The numbers are not derived.
It serves to aggrandize whatever softer basis might actually exist for the conclusion. Whether that's deliberate or the result of thoughtless use of useless platitudes, it's done with a disregard for honesty.
It is distasteful to make such accusations. Specially when the author has specifically left out the calculation and merely suggests of a “fraction” which is to be discovered with time.
It's not the only aggrandizing element of the blurb. The whole thing is baseless prediction presented as though it's hard truth, which is either deliberately dishonest or unconcerned with whether it's honest. If it's tasteless to point that out, I'll happily be crass about it.
Exactly. And you can already see the direction things are going with most Web and React Native UI libraries converging on tailwind, since it is extremely genai friendly.
The idea is that you change leadership with those who have genuine alignment with subjects' preference for certain policies or ideas, it is not about electing kings who may demand "machines must agree that the Emperor is not naked".
For me, the sense of a greater degree of independence and freedom is also important. Especially when the tech world is out of its mind with AI hype, it's difficult to feel the normal tinkerer's joy when I'm playing with some big, proprietary model. The more I can tweak at inference time, the more control I have over the tools in use, the more I can learn about how a model works, and the closer to true open-source the model is, the more I can recover my child-like joy at playing with fun and interesting tech-- even if that tech is also fundamentally flawed or limited, over-hyped, etc.
Your subtle idea that the comprehension and understanding is the shortcoming of political apparatus is overlooks the million issues as basic healthcare not being addressed. The problem is not understanding, I can assure you of that.
As someone who uses AI everyday. People who wish to restrict the use of their code by AI should be allowed to do so, but they should make sure their LICENSE is aligned with that. That is the only issue I see.
reply