Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hxugufjfjf's commentslogin

Don't think so much about learning Vim itself. Learn vi(m) motions and apply them everywhere. Look for software that supports those vi keybindings, for example Vimium in the browser or the vim keybindings plugin for VSCode if that is something you use. You'll arguably be faster at navigating a computer in general, and if not, you can still get enjoyment of how fast you'll feel. If you decide to go down this route, check out vimtutor.

Cool project! Would you be willing to share the source code?

It was so fast that I didn't realise it had sent its response. Damn.

Hurrah, its dumb answer to the now classic "the car wash is 100m away, should I drive or walk?" appeared very quickly.

It's an 8B parameter model from a good while ago, what were your expectations?

Please say this is sarcasm.

I don’t think the burden of proof lies on OP here. I also don’t think he fabricated it.

If he wasnt getting the vast majority of the attention from publishing about it I would agree.

I don't really see the validity in creating a conspiracy theory here. It's very crisis actor adjacent.

Its not a conspiracy theory.

Its a claim without evidence, and a significant lack of verification going on.


What else would you see them do or say beyond this canned response? The reason I am asking is because people almost always bring up how dissatisfied they are with such apologies, yet I’ve never seen a good alternative that someone would be happy with. I don’t work in PR or anything, just curious if there is a better way.

clear, direct description of what happened

exactly what data was exposed

what they failed to do (we used cheesy email, SMS as MFA, we do not monitor links in our internal emails)

concrete remediation commitments (we will stop using SMS for MFA, use hard tokens or TOTP or..., stop collecting data that is not explicitly needed)

realistic risk explanation (what can happen what was lost)

published independent external review after remediation/mitigation

board-level accountability (board pay goes for fix and customer protection, part of the audit results)

customer protection (3 - 5 years?), not just 'monitoring'

and most importantly, public shaming of the CxO and the board of directors


Not apologize if they don't actually care. An insincere apology is an insult.

Harvesting data and failing to even secure it should not be acceptable in society. It should be ruinous to the company and the people who run it.

Lose money accordingly - fines, penalties, recompense to victims, whatever... - so they then take the seriousness of security into account.

You absolutely can. We see a huge uproar in European enterprises against US software/vendors/etc. Many companies are halting their cloud migration because they are now worried that the current US government could decide to just pull the plug or something otherwise inane.

Those hours that with gentle work did frame The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell, Will play the tyrants to the very same And that unfair which fairly doth excel:


Because it’s not their business to sell a chat app? "Our company is the frontier lab for AI models, oh and btw we also offer SlackClone, sign up for enterprise please". Their job is selling shovels, really good, increasingly more expensive shovels that keep getting better, let others waste their time looking for gold.


But Google sells the productivity apps and also does the exact same things OpenAI does.

If their work on Gemini is this leading world-class stuff, why aren’t Google’s software products not suddenly becoming better?

Was the most recent release of Android demonstrative of a significant uptick in product iteration? Shouldn’t we suddenly be seeing Android pulling far ahead of iOS in an unusually rapid fashion because Apple doesn’t have access to the same quality of shovels?

What about Microsoft Windows 11? Isn’t Microsoft a major OpenAI investor with full access to their latest and greatest?

Why aren’t we seeing release schedules accelerate or feature lists growing at a faster rate?

Supposedly we are selling a lot of shovels here but I don’t see a lot of holes being dug.


Android is a poor example here especially with how more and more features are moved from the OS to Play services. Google is shipping so many features without even an OS update that's how Android has always been. Even for their OS, Pixel feature drops happen every quarter. AOSP is only a base for others to build anyway, have you seen how fast samsung and others are pushing updates and uncountable number of features. It's not comparable to iOS at all.


Okay, I agree with your premise, but can you point to some tangible acceleration in innovation.

Are these Google Play features coming out faster than they used to in a way that coincides with AI adoption?


Not really no. It's pretty much the same pace as before. I wanted to point out Android is not playing catch up to iOS in anyway in features or quality, it's the opposite. Your comment asked why Google isn't catching up to Apple with AI's help. iOS meanwhile has been regressing since 18 and is a mess now on 26.


Yes, to clarify, I’m not making any claim on Android versus Apple and which one is better, who is catching up to whom. Which operating system is ahead or better is essentially irrelevant to the point I’m making.

My main claim revolves around your second sentence: Google is a major primary source of AI research and has access to frontier models before all their customers, especially competitors like Apple who are clearly behind in the AI race and/or not participating in the same way.

In theory, if AI is transformational to developer velocity, Android and all other products under Google’s umbrella should be moving faster than competitors that don’t have early access and preferential wholesale cost AI infrastructure, and they should be clearly iterating faster and better than they did prior to ~2022-2024.

To me, the biggest argument for an AI bubble burst is that companies like Meta and Google won’t actually be able to show their prospective customers that their own workflows have benefitted. Google can’t say “we now ship major [Google Product] features n% faster/better” because there’s no evidence of it. They might make the claim but nobody will believe them.

Major corporations will try the products, start spending $20-200 per engineer per month extra, they’ll see productivity gains of <5% and maybe even see code quality drop, then they’ll decide that the experiment was a bust.

Essentially, this experience will be the most common one: https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1r6olcv/an...


This I do agree with. All I've seen is reducing headcounts and forcing people to take up other roles as well.


But they are marketing their AI as replacing all software engineers. Their CEO can’t stop saying it. According to them the cost of producing software is now just the cost of tokens to generate it.

They have special knowledge to leverage AI to clone (and even improve) huge revenue businesses with high margin. If their claims about the abilities of LLMs are accurate it would be foolish to just leave that on the table.

It would also prove the power of their LLM product as truly disruptive. It would be amazing marketing!


They care about money, they are making tons of investor money doing what they are doing, there's no incentive to pivot if it would just turn investor money into consumer money.


Their business is making money. If they can build money printing machines, they're not going to refuse to use them because that's "not their business".

Do you really think they would be out donating trillions of dollars to other companies out of the goodness of their hearts, instead of just bankrupting everyone in the software industry if they could?


Huh? What kind of question is that? Who waste the opportunity to win the AI race to become another Jira vendor? Everything has the opportunity cost. Didn’t you already learn that?


Isnt that point kind of the counterpoint to the AI-first narrative. With standard, human driven operations its true about opportunity costs. What we are told is that AI will replace human, essentially saying that opportunity cost becomes cash only. Then the question of why doesnt AI lab start SaaS fully managed by AI becomes ever more interesting. Maybe because it's not that simple. Hence, it's not that easy in other companies as well to just replace devs, engineers and so on with AI


They could always help with some OSS software’s list of bugs and issues.


Waste ? They can become both an AI race winner AND a disruptive Jira vendor. Yet they don't. Why ? To be a successful Jira vendor will prove their point that software engineers are obsolete now. Why don't they do that already ?


Then why are they letting their models write browsers and compilers?


There's a fracking cylon on Discovery!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: