Let's try to get a story on little Bobby Tables on the front page and find out.
3,876 karma · joined December 20, 2011
I find that most software development falls squarely into this category.
My bet is that we will see much more software, but more customized, and focused precisely on certain needs. That type of software will mostly be used privately.
Also, don't underestimate how long it will take for the masses to pick up new tools. There are still people, even here on Hacker News, proclaiming that AI coding assistants do not offer value.
I solved a few problems with it last year, and it is amazing how compact the solutions are. It also messes with your head, and the community surrounding it is interesting. Highly recommended.
If you don't want to help improve the world, then how are you expecting things to become better?
I understand that people don't like it that this will give Google an advantage. But what is the proper alternative? We have no non-profit organizations who could muster the money to build these systems. I suppose those who are critical of large companies would also be critical of governments building these systems.
So is what you (downvoters) propose here to just complain and do nothing about it? I'd be curious to hear what alternatives you propose.
Do your two decades of experience cover both sides?
If you understand the difference, it is often painfully obvious that most of us are in the last boat.
If you want something, you would typically be doing it already. Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but you might be more interested in asking questions than in giving answers. In that case, just try to enjoy life as long as it is smiling to you.
You may not use the Services to develop machine-learning models or related technology.
Taken literally, this appears to prohibit exactly what most users are doing today.
I assume the intent is to forbid using Gemini outputs to train models directly (e.g. via distillation or similar techniques), rather than to forbid anyone from working on new ML applications in Google Antigravity. However, in its current wording, the clause comes across as unnecessarily broad and somewhat silly. Am I misunderstanding this?
[1] https://deepgenerativemodels.github.io/
[2] https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoROMvodv4rPOWA-omMM6ST...
(In the context of "Apple has a private CSS property to add Liquid Glass effects to web content")
The website loads some external fonts and spits out many warnings in the console by default. Does not instill confidence in the truly paranoid hacker.
And to add something constructive: the timeframes for enjoying a hype cycle differ from person to person. If you are on top of things, it might be tiring, but there are still many people out there, who haven't made the connection between, in this case, LLMs and mathematics. Inspiring some people to work on this may be beneficial in the long run.
Doesn't this also suggest that the job market is in such an unusual state, that any further analysis makes little or no sense?
The agentic part of the equation is improving on both sides all the time.
(Yes, I am aware of the otherwise nonsensical concepts "pattern" and "interesting".)