It wasn’t just this though; the tool itself lacks the intent, context, and limitations of what we’re doing. It doesn’t have other aspects of the project, influences, references, or personal experiences in the back of its mind, because it doesn’t have a mind.
This describes the fundamental problem with AI. The chatbot will forever be like that new recruit to the team. Sure, they have the skills to make some contributions, but they lack the surrounding context to fully work autonomously. They need some guidance to get to the right path.
The difference between the chatbot and the new recruit is that the chatbot won’t remember all the guidances it got. The chatbot won’t remember all the design decisions that were made. The chatbot won’t remember that time prod went down. The chatbot will forever be like the new recruit with no experience.
It’s called “training” and “context window” for a reason. You aren’t supposed to use a chatbot “as is”, you’re supposed to train it, give it context, and use it as an agent.
Some people understand that, others will bet their business on imaginary workers. That’s their problem, and the new paradigm-shift culling of unfit businesses.
Meta and Tesla are proof that the market doesn’t cull unfit businesses. If anything, the opposite is true, large companies (effective monopolies) will sell at a loss to strangle thriving smaller companies and then will buy them out and dismantle them.
Don’t confuse “market”, with “stock market”, with “artificially intervened market”.
Since 2010, we’ve lived in an artificially intervened market with 0% interest rates on money. That means anyone can fart in the general direction of a business idea, and get founded, because why not. That’s a mockery of how markets are supposed to work.
Stock markets, are popularity contest casinos. In normal circumstances, the largest con artists get quickly ousted, but with 0% rates… who cares?! That’s how Tesla has a 130 P/E and 0.00% dividends; just look at the leader bounce on a stage and throw your money! SpaceX, Starlink, Boring, Twitter/X/xAI, don’t have listed stock for a reason. There is no interest in exposing them to the shenanigans of a stage performer.
The real market, is people voting with their wallets. After the 0% intervention dies out, after stage performers get kicked out… reality hits: an efficient business needs to aim for low P/E and high dividends. In the US you get examples like AES, with 6.87% dividend, and 4.33 P/E. Meta is trying to get to that level, but it’s coming from a high hype/meme level. We’ll see whether it manages.
Long term, will be a test of how businesses adapt to the productivity multiplier of AI. Some with reject it and get ran over, some will blindly jump on it and fall apart, some will be smart/lucky to extract as much productivity multiplication as possible and thrive on it. People will vote with their wallets on the winners.
This describes the fundamental problem with AI. The chatbot will forever be like that new recruit to the team. Sure, they have the skills to make some contributions, but they lack the surrounding context to fully work autonomously. They need some guidance to get to the right path.
The difference between the chatbot and the new recruit is that the chatbot won’t remember all the guidances it got. The chatbot won’t remember all the design decisions that were made. The chatbot won’t remember that time prod went down. The chatbot will forever be like the new recruit with no experience.
It’s called “training” and “context window” for a reason. You aren’t supposed to use a chatbot “as is”, you’re supposed to train it, give it context, and use it as an agent.
Some people understand that, others will bet their business on imaginary workers. That’s their problem, and the new paradigm-shift culling of unfit businesses.
Meta and Tesla are proof that the market doesn’t cull unfit businesses. If anything, the opposite is true, large companies (effective monopolies) will sell at a loss to strangle thriving smaller companies and then will buy them out and dismantle them.
Don’t confuse “market”, with “stock market”, with “artificially intervened market”.
Since 2010, we’ve lived in an artificially intervened market with 0% interest rates on money. That means anyone can fart in the general direction of a business idea, and get founded, because why not. That’s a mockery of how markets are supposed to work.
Stock markets, are popularity contest casinos. In normal circumstances, the largest con artists get quickly ousted, but with 0% rates… who cares?! That’s how Tesla has a 130 P/E and 0.00% dividends; just look at the leader bounce on a stage and throw your money! SpaceX, Starlink, Boring, Twitter/X/xAI, don’t have listed stock for a reason. There is no interest in exposing them to the shenanigans of a stage performer.
The real market, is people voting with their wallets. After the 0% intervention dies out, after stage performers get kicked out… reality hits: an efficient business needs to aim for low P/E and high dividends. In the US you get examples like AES, with 6.87% dividend, and 4.33 P/E. Meta is trying to get to that level, but it’s coming from a high hype/meme level. We’ll see whether it manages.
Long term, will be a test of how businesses adapt to the productivity multiplier of AI. Some with reject it and get ran over, some will blindly jump on it and fall apart, some will be smart/lucky to extract as much productivity multiplication as possible and thrive on it. People will vote with their wallets on the winners.