Maybe someone is posting links to a webpage somewhere?
I don't have the exact question I asked it, but it was about the use of baby foreskin in beauty products.
I just asked it a similar and more simplified question: "are there beauty products that still use baby foreskin as an ingredient" .. and grok was 1/3 sources .. my initial question it was 3/6 sources.
My friend, your hero literally seig heiled on stage in front of the world. Do you think you are clever by lying to us? We can also read the white nationalist trash he reposts on "X". Why do you think he wanted a new Wikipedia in the first place. The cat is out of the bag, you are complicit or a fool.
What’s wrong with grokipedia? I find it fair and reasonable. And it’s always nice to have a competitor because although Wikipedia is okay, it’s not sustainable to have it as a monopoly.
I like that OpenAI usds grokipedia and predict that Grokipedia will become more common and normal.
Ah yes Wikipedia, a non profit's a monopoly which generally has no bias and has become one of the best places even after the internet keeps on getting enshittified
Let's replace this with grokipedia whose grok generated some rather obscene and disgusting material on twitter as the main source instead of wikipedia.
Main benefit with microservices is independent deployments.
In my team, we once had 5 deployments of our service in a day and we did not have to coordinate it with anyone outside the team. This is an amazing benefit. Not many realise the cost we pay due to coordination. I can't even imagine how this would work in a monolith. Maybe we would meticulously write code in our dev environment and kinda pray that it works properly in production when our code is released say once a day.
Real life is more messy and it is great that I had the option to deploy 5 times to production. That fast feedback loop is much appreciated.
I work on a monolith and deploy 20+ times per day to production, sometimes 100+ times depending on the day. weird that you’d say benefit of microservices is that you can do 5 deployments daily to production, that would not make my top-100 list to use them
From the way you state it, it sounds like you have sole control and discretion over the deployments. Which is kind of exactly the point.
Suppose there was another person also with top level responsibilty telling you not to do that? It might be fine for your code, but they don't want their code doing that. My guess is 5 minutes later you'd have started a project to carve your code out from theirs so you could deploy it independently.
well, that's kind of just a more extreme version of "5 minutes later you'd have started a project to carve your code out from theirs so you could deploy it independently" isn't it? For people without the luxury of resigning their job at a moment's notice being an option, this is the next best thing.
what exactly does this mean? you work on a team, team is responsible for the product. there is nothing "independent" about it. everyone does their job, everyone deploys to production. if you are at any place where "deploying to production" is an "event" then for sure I would advice either leave or if that is not an option work towards this goal. there should be no one on the team that can't "deploy to production" and there shouldn't really be anything "independent" thing going on in my opinion. I see a whole lot of discussion and struggles around this though...
Of course it does. Imagine you wrote code and someone is deploying it. You need to be there to monitor it and make sure nothing breaks. Unless you guard everything with a feature flag which is not effective all the time.
You are right but from a different context. In a well thought out microservice architecture, you will not have business logic scattered across multiple services.
We have had instances of microservice architecture where doing one change required changes in 4 different microservices defeating the whole point. Obviously this is bad.
“ In a well thought out microservice architecture, you will not have business logic scattered across multiple services.”
A “well thought out” architecture that holds up over years is a pipe dream. There will always be changes that require a rethinking of the whole system.
Yes that's the tradeoff. Over time your architecture degrades and you need to rethink the services. But good part is that migration is simpler and less risky when you are just making changes to few microservices.
Shed workers ... increase profit ... stock price go up ... Exec get bonus ... Economy fail ... Exec no care ... Exec have bonus and job still ...
Honestly the caveman speak will get me marked down but fuck it.. It is transparent what they want....
Ai has use but frankly until it can be trusted to actually follow the right path and skip around hard tasks make subtle bugs that can screw things up... It will get worse before it gets better....
Very emotional article. I keep seeing this trope but I wonder how people reconcile this: autodesk is enshittifying its product. Users are leaving. But also wall street likes it. But also Wall Street is this powerful institution that keeps making money.
How does all this add up? Is Wall Street so stupid to encourage all products to enshittify thereby leading to their own loss of investments?
It's quite a simple story, wall street likes companies that make profits - and by that I mean that they receive more in revenue than they spend. Now there's really a few ways of making more profits.
You can invest (spend more) and hope that that investment yields more revenue down the line. This is bad. Wall street doesn't like this, because you're definitely making less profits now because you're investing money you could've given back in profits, you might make more in the future - but no guarantee. Risky! Wall street hates this!
You can raise margins. This can be good. As long as demand is fairly inelastic this will pretty directly translate into profits. But you can only do this for so long, by definition you just always want to do this until you can't any more, so you've probably already pulled this lever as much as you can.
You can cut costs. This is good. Wall street likes this. You definitely get more profits right now. It could impact your ongoing growth, but that's just maybe! You can be more efficient right? And even if it does impact your future growth that's not going to show up for years. So right now, you're more valuable!
More directly, they don't care about the crash, because some of them either can profit from the crash or more generally are incentivized to think they should extract all value right up to the point of crashing and not a second less, because that is leaving money on the table
I see it as an extension of the tragedy of commons, no individual wants to destroy the finite resource, but everyone exploiting it to exhaustion always will
> autodesk is enshittifying its product. Users are leaving. But also wall street likes it. But also Wall Street is this powerful institution that keeps making money.
Enshittication makes earnings go up. Not infinitely, but for long. Enshittication is not done for fun, it is done for shorter term profit and Wall Street is all about that. Eventually it will go down and Wall Street will desert the company, moving money into something else to enshittify it.
No I don’t think humans have some magical metaphysical deduction capability that LLMs lack exclusively.
I have had conversations and while they don’t have the exact attentiveness of a human, they get pretty close. But what they do have an advantage in is being an expert in almost any field.
Yes, LLMs have been a very expensive philosophy lesson for many investors. Ancient epistemology debates are now front and center for everyone to see. So-called "formal epistemology" is just empiricism in disguise attempting to borrow the credibility of rationalism and failing miserably.
LLMs are Bayesian inference and come with all its baggage. We definitely know brains are way better than that, even of other animals or insects.
Ultimately, there's no point in getting a chatbot to say deceptively expert-like words that are guaranteed by design to be lower quality than the books or blogs it learned from. LLMs are at best a search tool for those sources, and investor attitude now reflects that sanity with their confidence shifting back over to Google's offerings. Agentic AI is also pretty weak since agents are as functionally limited as any traditionally written computer program, but lacking the most crucial property of repeatability.
I find it shocking how many people didn't see this whole thing as a grift from day one. What else was SV going to do during the post-covid economic slump?
? They certainly flatter you, openAI even felt compelled to give a statement on the sycophancy problem: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
And South Park parodied the issue.
I use chatGPT and claude every day.
> No they don’t flatter you, try using ChatGPT once.
You're absolutely right!
On a more serious note, if it has almost infinite knowledge, is it even a cognitive-offloading tool in the same class as paper? Sounds more like something designed to stifle and make my thoughts conform to its almost infinite knowledge.
edit:
I'll admit ChatGPT is a great search engine (and also very hallucinatory depending on how much you know about the subject) and maybe it helps some people think, sure. But beyond a point I find it actually harmful as a means to develop my own ideas.
reply