Dug into the available information about Manus's business. I imagine this is pretty reflective of the new class of $100m ARR AI companies. High CAC, high costs, high competition and no real clue where things will land long term.
Routes you to a random LLM - just a fun way to force yourself to try new things not just rely on muscle memory. Currently only has 5-10 and roughly weights the routing by popularity (ChatGPT -> Gemini -> Claude .... Copilot). Have been using it personally but thought I'd share in case folks had other ones to add. Main learning so far is that many are really good. Often small UX decisions can lead to better experiences than just AI horsepower.
I believe it's not strictly more decks, but also how often they shuffle. If they add 7 decks but don't shuffle until near the bottom, it's actually advantageous as the count can get very skewed (e.g. 50 cards left and 30 facecards remaining). However, with 7 decks and reshuffling halfway through the count doesn't reach as much relevance to the next card.
I wonder if in an application you could branch on something more abstract than tokens. While there might by 50k token branches and 1k of reasonable likelihood, those actually probably cluster into a few themes you could branch off of. For example “he ordered a …” [burger, hot dog, sandwich: food] or [coke, coffee, water: drinks] or [tennis racket, bowling ball, etc: goods].
I was thinking along the same lines and I think where I end up is realizing searching though the possible space of token sequences isn't the way to do it as the text output space is too far removed from the ground truth for humans. As in text is already a biased projection of reality by humans, now we're searching through an LLM's crude estimation of a biased projection of this?
I think a deeper architectural change involving searching internally in the latent space of a model is required. That way we could search in "thought space" instead of "text space" and maybe then only convert the output to text after searching.
My amateur understanding is that the benefits are:
A) H2 is exceptionally difficult to store at scale. Salt caverns are an option, but that is limited
B) methanol can be used off the shelf by existing generators so the prices are much more economical and they can use both fuels during a transitory period
I mean, it's totally fine for a non-profit to "wallow in irrelevance"? I think the fundamental issue here is that a tax-exempt non-profit organization like these board members are leading _shouldn't_ necessarily be chasing fame/fortune. By definition they've put mission above profits (with tax writeoffs as a benefit). The naivety seems to be that the company is trying to be altruistically mission driven while also acting like a typical ambitious/profit seeking startup. Startups are great! Just weird to wrap one in a non-profit which brings different incentives
