hm
11 karma · joined February 27, 2025
- Generative AI (spotting processes to streamline through AI automation, voice agents for customer service, custom-made chatbots for internal & compliant deep research with proprietary data, etc.).
- Web UI/UX: creating any webpage, landing page, app, etc. with Next.js.
- Data Engineering: creating and deploying data pipelines, data QA with AI agents, etc.
- Data Science: creating custom models with ML (classifiers, labelers) to save up costs for tasks with simple patterns rather than using GPT for everything, using statistics and mathematical models.
If you want to reach out, feel free to reach out to us at toni@antokel.com !
in yc cofounder matching there's just too much noise and i wanted to sort that out posting this here directly
I'm a fullstack dev looking for a cofounder with contacts for B2B (coding skills not needed), maybe YC companies themselves, and that's good at selling. The project is about bringing 1,000 employees to your pocket, like Devin AI but for anything. The ideal customer are startups that need quick fixes in many different areas integrated in their environments (Slack, GitHub, Discord...) rather than big enterprises. Hit: contacto.nty.es@gmail.com
Recent projects I made: https://donsir.com/, https://arcalate.com/, Arcal language learning app
The hyperinflation that caused turbulences in Germany as well as previous wars aren’t either of them capitalism-like.
Hyperinflation countries suffer it because the government steps in and manipulates the currency. We have the examples of Venezuela and Argentina as the most recent. Germany had the same destiny, although more caused by the constrictions placed on them by the States that won World War I.
Kids blowing glass is caused by poorness rather than capitalism. Precisely now that our capitalists societies created wealth is that we now don’t need to send our children to factories. It’s precisely poor countries the ones that gotta send their children to factories, like certain populations in China. Even before capitalism, children did still worked, yet on farms rather than factories. And their conditions weren’t greater at all either.
Marx wasn’t actually against child labour and he favoured it: he just wanted them to work under socialism and not under capitalists. He actually said that work was essential for the development of those children, but they shouldn’t do it under very poor health conditions. But again, that’s caused by poverty, not capitalism. In the Soviet Union children still worked in practice and conditions weren’t great either.
Regarding health and education, the US is weird because such a system has the absolute worse of markets (having to pay) and socialism (being hyper regulated). Nonetheless, it’s as easy as to fix one or the other. In Switzerland the system is essentially private and doesn’t suck so much. In fact, quite the opposite: it’s much better than most other systems like British or Spanish ones. Here in Spain you can wait 3-4 years for just a diagnosis for a colon cancer. 3-4 years. For the diagnosis only.
In Switzerland you don’t have such long waiting lists and costs are much manageable relative to their living costs.
Most of the US education and health system problems are outrageously caused by the State. As Mises said, every government regulation requires more government regulation, since politicians need to try and palliate the inefficiencies created by them with more regulatory patches.
Even so, how do you define a socialist healthcare system? In Spain or the UK there are private providers of healthcare and actually most of the public administration in Spain (at least the top ranks) are paying one. You could say that if the majority of spending is made by the government it’s socialist-like, and if not it’s capitalist-like. But in the US most of healthcare expenditure is government made, by a small margin. Such a system can’t be considered capitalist, and maybe trying to emulate a more friendly framework like the Swiss could be more beneficial that trying to stack more regulations on top of what the US already suffers.
So either you end hyper regulation and let markets lower prices or you go all in and go with full regulation and no market prices (think of British healthcare), at the expense of lousy quality in terms of speed and procedures.
All other alternatives than capitalism or partial capitalism have been ruled out by any country that has anything to do in the world, or for any society in which material well-being is present for the majority of their population.
The fact that ads are annoying doesn’t mean that capitalism is bad or degenerate.
If I have had a bad girlfriend and I’m ugly as hell as to not afford any other, then yes I’ll be prompted to say the relationships market has become degenerate. But probably it’s just that I can’t find good partners on it.
The same if you can’t pay for YouTube Premium, X Premium+ or the like. And precisely because capitalism isn’t degenerate but buoyant, ad-free solutions like Perplexity for search are rising at such a rapid pace it can’t do anything but increase optimism in the future.
Anyhow, capitalism = saving, investing and reinvesting. You can see more details on my reply to MountainMan1312. It ain’t look that bad as a system, philosophy or even religion.
It’s probably consumption that you are attacking, with all the right and common sense of the world; yet that’s cause by opulence, not by capitalism. It’s true that capitalism create staggering wealth that’s a quite remarkable tendency to then produce opulence (desiring luxury stuff in great amounts for the sake of just having and exhibiting it). But that’s correlation, not causality.
Sadly, you can’t criticise socialism on having a consumptionist society because they don’t have anything to consume at all. They aren’t a superior race or morally superior; they just can’t consume as much as we do with the liberty we do, so they don’t.
You have essentially used a bad-looking, cynical description of capitalism vs an idealised description of socialism. It’s not fair game to compare a cynical view of capitalism in practice with an idealised view of socialism in theory. You either both compare them in practice, in which capitalism wins every time; or compare in theory, in which both are probably on ties, because any idealised version promises the same prosperity and society well-being.
Capitalism is about investment, more than anything else. Why was capitalism born at the creation of the Stock Exchange? Because then savers could use their savings as funding for entrepreneurial endeavours. As British Victorians wanted, the goal was “to live off from the interest made by interests”, referring to their investments’ growth and compounding returns.
In socialism, they essentially want to strip off capitalists from their savings and funding and let the State manage it all. Socialists assume a centralized institution can handle all of the information and get right the incentives, which has been seen to not work every time you try it.
It is also a contradiction of terms to say that socialism, as it was defined by any socialist theorist, is of the “libertarian type”; who by definition wants both economic and social liberties to individuals, whereas socialism by its very postules looks forward to remove any economic liberty and ownership of capital as means of production, whatever vague definition they use to define these (a laptop can be both a means of production and a consumption good at the same time).
Further, advertising is like capitalism from the business perspective, not from the customer perspective. For the business it’s an investment. From the customer it’s just the cost to pay to use a service. And, as said, what defines capitalism is investment, not consumption, and prove of that is that we’ve always consumed stuff along history but only when investment was institutionalised and carried out at scale through a Stock Exchange that capitalism was coined, referring precisely to the act of investing and reinvesting.
Capitalism actually wants to convince you to be frugal, save, and invest your savings. It is consumption, and not capitalism, that tries to convince you to spend it all. Both are antagonists. Consumption is born from opulence, not capitalism. If socialism did also produce abundance in extreme levels for everyone they would be as consumptionists as they could ever be, just as we are in our rich, Western societies. Note that less consumptionist societies like Singapore do better and are considered to be more capitalists than countries like Spain or Italy.
Again, it is opulence that causes excessive consumption: and it’s only capitalism the system that has indeed produce overwhelming wealth to every individual, both poor and rich, something that no other system has ever achieved at the same order of magnitude. And that’s nothing mystical or religious: it’s just that capitalism = investing and reinvesting, so no wonder we have much more to consume if we are all day reinvesting the product of our means of production into more means of production.
Couldn’t you make the same argument for Midjourney, for example, which heavily depends on Discord?
From what you said, you won’t accept such a product if it isn’t open source? Or at least, where you can choose the models and pay per use or something similar to that.
My guess is that big, powerful companies won’t use a pay-per-use Devin-like service because they just have so much people they can delegate tasks on that also use Cursor or the like; and startup companies that really need the product’d prefer a fixed rate like Cursor does.
Maybe they’ll actually use specialized agents for multiple tasks, but will also try to build their own solutions or sue frameworks rather than hire another company (like big companies that use Crew AI because it’s open source).
And are you ok with the quality that those full-fledged AI agents (like Devin) deliver? Do you have more pains that the single vendor dilemma?
Just for fun, I added Filipino and Arabic to the tool (https://arcalate.vercel.app/). I've tried out your sentence "Don't forget to share your referral code or link so you can get attractive bonuses." and Arcalate Deep Translate spit out:
"Huwag kalimutan na ibahagi ang iyong referral code o link upang makuha ang mga kahalina-halinang benepisyo."
No idea how good it is, though. It doesn't look like the one you mentioned nor Google's.
That’s the 1-2 features you talk about for this project. I’d also like to be able to add (1) glosaries, (2) formal, informal and custom tone, and (3) infinite context windows. But seems less important than the rest.
I’m developing two apps: a GPT, infinite context translator and a language learning app filled with AI. In fact, this is a preview of the translator https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43199806, although it does currently not support the infinite context window. I know how to make it but won’t be as easy.
I’ll focus on the translator now. It takes a bit more time o deliver the translation (up to x5.5 what Google Translate) but its quality is 20-40% higher (BLEU score) and its API will be fixed at $0.70 per million characters in fast mode and $2.10 per million in Deep Translate (reasoning) mode. Google offers $20 per million characters. That’s a significant drop in price and a better translation.
I’m currently concocting the benchmarks with FLORES-200 and a bunch of languages to refine the product. My idea was to make a press release or something and send it out to portals like TechCrunch. I expected a better reduction in price and much more quality increase than a /10 and a +40%, but still might be worth a press article.
What do you think about this? Following on in your comment, I should maybe find a Reddit post that studies translation and translators?
What is interesting to me is the fact that they haven’t developed (or at least publicly disclosed so) this idea further. What if you have 37 “experts”, but each being notoriously small? Is it a requisite that each expert is a fully functional LLM on its own? Can’t they interconnect like the brain does with its lobes?