"React by Default is Killing Front End Innovation" is probably a better headline for the post. It looks towards the present and the future, not how we got here.
All in all, this story has played out many times before, and will again. I think you either have adoption or you have a modern solution without technical debt. React had constraints that don't exist anymore that shaped its architecture, and now it has an enormous community that cannot turn on a dime.
Svelte, Solid, and Qwik have the benefit of hindsight and browser advancements. In 10 to 15 years time we'll be talking about a new batch of frameworks that have the same advantages over Svelte/Solid/Qwik.
I believe your link says you must apply at the country you're visiting, or the country you're visiting first. And you must apply at the consulate for the country you are a resident of. So if I was applying to visit France, I could do so from the US embassy in France.
This seems to differ from the new US rule where you must also apply in the country you're a resident of.
Why would you apply at the US consulate for a visa to France? That makes no sense no matter how I try to interpret.
The way it works is, if you're applying for a French visa in Mongolia and you're not a Mongolian national, you need to provide your Mongolian residence permit or else your application will be refused outright.
you got that mixed up: you would apply at the french embassy in the US. and, that's the key point for schengen: you would not apply at the eg german embassy in the US, even though both would get you the same visa. the US embassy can't give you a schengen visa, and you could not even get to the one in france since you are not there yet. and if you visit multiple countries, it's either the one where you spend most of the time, or the one where you enter the schengen area (this may be different from the country you visit first because you could have a flight transfer inside schengen). at least as far as i know.
This problem isn't exclusive to current implementations of AI.
I had a US business professor explain in one of my business classes that making a bit more money might push you over into the next tax bracket and cost you more in taxes than you made.
This guy had a PhD, had been teaching for decades and apparently didn't understand the marginal tax system.
> I had a US business professor explain in one of my business classes that making a bit more money might push you over into the next tax bracket and cost you more in taxes than you made.
He's not wrong. You are correct if you consider only income taxes. But there are other tax benefits that lead to discontinuities with respect to income.
As an example, in my state you can deduct up to $5000 of contributions to a 529 plan if your income is under $250K. Go a penny above that threshold, and you can deduct only $2500. That extra penny just reduced your refund by a few hundred dollars.
In the Netherlands we have a marginal tax rate, so every Euro over X gets taxed 10%, everything over Y gets taxed 15% etc. (simplified numbers obviously).
However, often times it's better to stay in the top of a lower bracket because of tangentially-related benefits, such as healthcare subsidies, rent subsidies and other things like that. If you go from tax bracket 1 -> 2 because you get a 100 euro raise, sure you'll get 100 euros more (well, more like 95 but whatever), but you also lose out on more than that in the form of a loss in other benefits.
My partner went through this recently, she got a raise at work, but as a result she actually lost the subsidized rent money she got from the gov't. She had to request her workplace lower her wage so she was under the limit, because otherwise she couldn't have afforded rent on her own, and if the raise was even 2 euros/hr higher, she might've even been kicked out of her social housing situation.
That's because the benefits aren't marginal, they work on a hard cut-off limit. Anything over X amount and you're just cut off, you're not gradually weened off it until you're at a high enough income to not require gov't help.
It seems reasonable to say that AGI will take a ton of resources. You'll need investors for power, GPUs, researchers, data, and the list goes on. It's a lot easier to get there with viable commercial products than handouts.
I'd be willing to bet that between Sam's approach and the theorized approach of the OpenAI board we're discussing, Sam's approach has a higher chance of success.
It's looking at humans, how they're trained and their wetware makes me believe that AGI, as most people understand it, ie a super human like intelligence, will never exist. There will be powerful AI but it won't be human like in the way people think about it now.
Even so, was expecting more dissimilarities or even just types of inappropriateness that are very human — humans are a broad bunch, no reason the LLMs wouldn't just default to snarky and lazy, like the example from the OpenAI Dev Day of someone who tried to fine tune on their slack messages, asked it to write something, and it said "Sure, I'll do it in the morning".
Despite people calling them stochastic parrots and autocomplete on steroids, ChatGPT is behaving like it is trying to answer rather than merely trying to continue the text the user enters. I find this surprising.
Precisely. Breakthroughs are often cleverer than brute force, “throw more compute/tokens at it” approaches. Turning some crucial algorithm from O(n) to O(log(n)) could be an unlock worth trillions of compute time dollars.
It seems like the board wasn't comfortable with the direction of profit-OAI. They wanted a more safety focused R&D group. Unfortunately (?) that organization will likely be irrelevant going forward. All of the other stuff comes from speculation. It really could be that simple.
It's not clear if they thought they could have their cake--all the commercial investment, compute and money--while not pushing forward with commercial innovations. In any case, the previous narrative of "Ilya saw something and pulled the plug" seems to be completely wrong.
I'm really curious about your story. Two years ago your posts were seeking business tips because your efforts weren't working. One year ago you were looking for a way out of web dev. What did your path look like between then and now?
So I had been trying to sell software products that I built for about a decade. 2 years ago things hit rock bottom and I was thinking of switching away from this industry completely. As in most stories I guess when you try and try and hit rock bottom, something changes in your head? Then things started clicking and I hit upon my first offer which worked. Reinvest all profits into social media ads and if your product can be used anywhere it is ridiculous how fast you can grow. I make 3 of those 4 millions in the last 2 months. What is also crazy is how much of a margin there is in a software product. I know of some people who do this in ecommerce but they have profit margins of maybe 20%. I have profit percentages of over 90. But I had to hire more people towards the end of last year and that was a pain and still is. Hiring is not a solved problem.
Lets be happy when someone says they're hiring juniors.
The poster sounds like someone who invests in people and doesn't rule them out based on years of experience on their resume. From all of the "where are the seniors?" threads I've seen, the industry could use more of that.
This assumes that the market is actually opaque for both parties. The information asymmetry between employer and employee regarding wages is pretty well documented. There are other pressures on wages in particular: not filling a position for 6 months usually hurts an employer less than an employee not having a job for that same amount of time.
