Can I currently put a VAD module in the pipeline and only send audio when there is an active conversation? Feel like just that would solve the problem?
4,439 karma · joined December 4, 2013
a) "the technology is overhyped", based on some meaningless subjective criteria, if you think a technology is overhyped, don't invest your money or time in it. No one's forcing you.
b) "child abuse problems are more important", with a link to an article that clearly specifies that the child abuse problems have nothing to do with OpenAI.
c) "it uses too much energy and water". OpenAI is paying fair market price for that energy and what's more the infrastructure companies are using those profits to start making massive investments in alternative energy [1]. So if everything about this AI boom fails what we'll be left with is a massive amount of abundant renewable energy (the horror!)
Probably the laziest conjecture I have endured from The Atlantic.
[1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/artificial-intelligen...
Does the pricing breakdown to be the same as having a OpenAI Advanced Voice socket open the whole time? It's like $9/hr!
It would be theoretically cheaper to use this without keeping the advanced voice socket open the whole time and just use the GPT4o streaming service [1] for whenever inference is needed (pay per token) and use livekits other components to do the rest (TTS, VAD etc.).
What's the trade off here?
[1]: https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/streaming
I agree adding their own license was hamfisted, but honestly, if I'm funding a company I hope they would spend less than <$1 on legal and licensing initially. The first order of business is almost always proving whether your business should even exist.
[1]: https://jaredheyman.medium.com/on-the-176-annual-return-of-a...
They fund competitors because most YC companies usually pivot out anyway.
For more context, YC doesn't judge your code, never has. It was never a code quality competition. Orthogonally, they do judge the results (user metrics).
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how YC functions. YCombinator was never a test of how good (or unique) your code was. At its core it was a filter of people, people who can work well together and people who can build something useful. That's it. You can read more about this straight from one of the founders [1]. The fact that you used open-source code (within legal bounds) to get their quicker just shows your resourcefulness, something YC actually optimizes for.
More often than not, "good people" tend to be domain experts sometimes really good and unique coders but that, to me, was always a byproduct of the search pattern.
You can obviously disagree with this methodology, but it has worked pretty well.
[1]: https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-social-radar-what-i...
Like if I’m a startup reliant on open-source models I realize I don’t need liability and extra safety precautions but I didn’t hear any guarantees that this wouldn't turn off Meta from releasing their models to me if my business was in California?
I never heard any clarifications from the Pro groups about that
Was the original quote. I just showed that you could get rid of all rockets ever made and it would be a rounding error for any funds used to save the “losers” from dying.
How is that a non-sequitur?
If you don’t think NIMBYism and degrowth is a problem in your country yet, just give it a couple of years. It just hit England, you’re next. No billionaire can save you.
If just these problems could be solved the state has more than enough funds to house everyone. What billionaires do would be wholly irrelevant (like it is now)
[1] https://www.constructiondive.com/news/construction-materials...
They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole. That should tell you something.
Go to Berkeley, tell them a Billionaire wants to build housing for the homeless in their neighborhood. See what happens.
It’s a hard pill to swallow but the best thing billionaires can do is let us tax them and then butt out go fly rockets. The political problems is upto the rest of us.
Pretty much everything required to build housing, wood, labor, pre-approved land is in a massive shortage that we can’t spend money to fix.
So more money to simple pump demand for all those things will have a massive inflationary impact.
There's a massive shortage in construction workers [1], so yes there will be? The few construction workers we do have can demand higher wages (yay!) but then will they be outbidding other mid-income folks for housing with those increased wages? Sounds like an inflation spiral to me.
My statement wasn't against social housing, I love social housing. We just haven't cracked the code in scaling housing (and subsequent maintenance) yet. And the problem is about 80% political will, billionaire cash is useless here.
[1]: https://www.abc.org/News-Media/News-Releases/abc-2024-constr...
The Social Security budget is $1.4 Trillion, just the federal welfare budget is >$1Trillion (not including state budgets), and then there's medicare. Meanwhile, the NASA budget is <$25B (with SpaceX's operating budget and profits being a fraction of that)
I wish we lived in that simple of a world. But we don't.
Funnel $10B in housing to Los Angeles and you'll build less than 100 units of housing, because the inflationary push of that money would balloon the cost of per unit housing. I don't want to imagine the effect of that on middle class housing.
Funnel $10B of food to xyz famine region and you've undercut local farmers for generations. Happens all the time [1]. And that's assuming you can get the aid past local corruption.
These problems aren't as simple as people assume, and I'm low-key happy young naive Billionaire's are avoiding these issues instead of trying to throw their weight around.
FWIW: Sam's already funneled a bunch of money into green energy production[2].
[1]: https://haitisolidarity.net/in-the-news/how-the-united-state...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/25/sam-altman-backed-nuclear-st...
I wonder if software engineers would pay for some software (or dedicated hardware) to turn their laptops into a coding typewriter with maybe just a GPT connection to probe documentation and whatever tunnels they need to work on internet deployments.
I'd love to experiment with something like this.
In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tech. One could rationally call this power-hungry but one could also rationally call this just helicopter parenting of a tech you've helped built. And for that a for-profit that is allowed to maximize profits to re-invest in the tech is the optimal setup (esp if all the competitors are doing the same)
Is this a different org than when it started? Yes. Was this a dupe from the beginning? I don't think so.
"But why can't he have a more worldly-aligned board looking over his shoulder?"
Because we live in California and have a bad taste for governance by committee or worse: governance by constant non-representative democracy (see: Housing).
If this now completely comes off the wheels, I still think Congressional action can be a stopgap, but atleast for now, this restructure makes sense to me.
If they can fix their incentives there it will address 80% of the concerns in this thread.
Counterintuitively I think a passive screen affixed to your face will reduce your reliance on all other screens. Glasses aren't a great form factor for scrolling feeds, but they are much better at connecting you to your physical world (which phones are the worst at). That plus just the posture improvements [1] that glasses can provide over the phone may make this a winner.
[1]: https://www.today.com/health/texting-neck-how-hunching-over-...
With Orion, no devkits publicly available either.
Exciting work! It seems like the main problems are now in miniaturizing electronics (and not optics) into a Ray-Ban form factor? Super cool.
a) How do offer + contingencies work (contingent on financing, home inspection etc.), will a human immediately have to get involved when any contingencies are involved?
b) Your service will text the sellers agent, and get me the lockbox number so I can tour a property myself without having to schedule with a buyers agent? Just that service alone would be amazing
“vocal minority is very loud, everyone else disagrees but are too busy to come yell at electeds, so we can’t fix this obvious problem. Done. Problem festers”
The perfect system is a public healthcare with true abundance.