What is a moat if not something used to protect the castle?
In this case it stops people copying your IP
8,916 karma · joined May 10, 2020
In this case it stops people copying your IP
Sounds more like a vague prediction of what the future might be like rather than an iron-clad claim.
There's plenty of things that cost money that legislation forces companies to do anyway, regardless of if there is a 'funding source' or not.
Although this particular one is from the FCA so presumably is taxpayer funded anyway.
It may also be that misaligned responses can be in CoT which OpenAI does not want to show to users.
Coding is probably solved, at least to a large extent, but that doesn't mean engineering is solved too.
This is like someone saying that the wright brothers solved sustained/powered human flight, and another person saying "well if that's the case, why do planes still crash? obviously flight isn't solved.". Well, there are always improvements, but planes can fly and llm's can code.
As it's open source and built with a codebase that's easy for LLM's to work with, users can download it and tailor it to their business/operational requirements, although it also has out of the box 'industry best practice processes' so you don't have to reinvent the wheel and can only focus on writing the 10% custom stuff which differentiates your business.
As all the processes are flexible, you can also do proper 'continuous improvement' with your staff - something traditional WMS products struggle with.
No link because I'm finalising it at the moment, but if you are interested please reply!
Depends who 'we' is - I've seen plenty of non-tech people in the real world begin to use ChatGPT as a primary information source rather than the web (rightfully or not!)
I suspect that 'we' might not be the true early adopters here, similar to how quite a lot of the most technical users in the 80's thought GUI's were a waste of time.
As someone who bids for these contracts, my outsider view of the procurement process is that it seems to spends so much time and effort being fair and impartial, that it actually ends up:
* Giving too much information to suppliers (i.e. who else is bidding and how much the government will pay) - These things are never given in private sector contracts but you are often told with a public sector procurement process.
* Being a checkbox excercise, with scorecard criteria that can tip the balance that don't have anything to do with how well the company actually does the job.
* The procurement process itself can say to companies 'we are hard to deal with, uncooperative and don't really know what we want', which will obviously influence pricing. I've seen tender documents say silly things like you will be disqualified if you can't make an in-person meeting about the tender given 24 hours notice. Tender documents often contain 49 pages of waffle and almost zero specification of what is actually expected to be delivered (while this is common in the private sector too, it's much worse in the public sector in terms of how poorly defined tenders are).
* Often they have classic procurement footguns, like mandating cost down initiatives throughout the contract which everyone on the sales side knows means 'build in extra margin in years 1 & 2 to fake cost down to year 3'
* The process is so 'fair' that it ignores who will actually do the job for the best total value (mix of quality and cost). This is maybe a little subjective, but often you can end up with what appear to be bizarre awards from an outside perspective.
Then every bid has it's own unique weird things, where often you are told who you are bidding against and sometimes even how much the government wants to pay!
The scorecards are often weird, will do things like ask you to write mini-essays with word limits where you get penalised for being over the word count, or where 20% of the bid points are based on a combination of diversity and impact on the local community/environment rather than on who will do the job best at the lowest price.
The entire process is completely broken, and has no reference to good/standard procurement processes in the private sector.
You might not, but that's just an example where a different style of communication might help some people. It's great that you would be happy without validation, but I can safely say some people do flourish when given it! Lots of people need to be given a bit of confidence, particularly when they are new to a role, and in my experience that's easier over a call.
As another example if I ask people on Slack how busy they are I will often get a different answer compared to calling them and checking in, asking if they need support, particularly if I can hear that they are stressed.
Or while on a text chat someone might say they understand a problem, on a phone call it's much more natural to get them to play it back to you so you can work out when they miss some nuance.
A call with your manager where they say "yes, I agree with everything you said - go ahead and do it, I trust you" can mean much more than the same thing said in a text message.
It's always easier to see the right move in hindsight!
Also that's not what the bullwhip effect is - although I know what you are saying. The bullwhip scenario is about the effect of communication and batching through various layers in the supply chain, this is more similar to the cobweb effect/theory.
Lots of treatments start expensive and then come down in cost as competitors step in.
Just looking at 8gb doesn't tell you the whole picture - that's like just looking at how many litres a cars engine is as the only part of determining if a car is good or not.
Microsoft Store: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-lapt... - $1,149
Apple Links: https://www.apple.com/macbook-neo/ - $599 https://www.apple.com/ipad-11/ - $349
I'm sure there are much cheaper places you can get a surface - but comparing MSRP to MSRP for the new models is a much plainer comparison, particularly as it's often difficult to see if you are looking at an older model with Windows PCs.
If you replace an iPad you bought for $350 a year ago with a $600 surface, it will be a markedly worse experience as a tablet. Nothing has yet combined the two without comprimise - you either get a device which is a bad laptop and a good tablet, or a bad tablet and a good laptop.
We are talking about the third largest company in the world by market cap - growing an additional 3X isn't particularly feasible (that would have made them twice the size of the next largest company).
Particularly with the hardware category it's easier to drop the ball and fumble rather than stay on top - just see Nokia or Rim.
I suspect if the 'AI-Maximalists' are true, it will need to be a more fundamental rewrite (e.g. UBI, Socialism etc)
I think that's the reality of lots of people when they face any redundancy situation - People take up jobs that they wouldn't traditionally want to do in order to survive or look after their family. I don't necessarily see why people on HN would be different.
There isn't much point in having people do jobs they don't like which are trivial to automate just for money, but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down.
> What is the benefit exactly?
Well one benefit would be international competitiveness. The country that does it slowest will be the country doing more work for less output.
I don't need to offer my own analysis to know that "Netanyahu asked trump to go to war because he wanted to create instability and that it was because of the the military industrial complex" is the sort of analysis you get if your research is 2 or 3 facebook posts.
I'm not 100% convinced that the consultancy/implementation being the same as the software vendor is a bad thing.
Depending on the contract it can give you better exit clauses, implementation costs can be subsidised by SaaS revenue, you might have novel clauses for PS overspends, you get rid of the 'implementation vendor blames software vendor' thing, if you need modifications/enhancements to the base product then it sits with the same person, plus we don't know if Palantir's system is easily made for an independent implementation consultant to pick it up and be able to do everything without having to do some backend magic.
See Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc