I agree. Additionally, a company can own and update a business language of their own design at their own pace and need. Then they can use AI to translate from their controlled business language to the DSL needed (translation being an area it actually does well). In this way the LLM would only ever be going from General -> specific, which should keep it on the rails, and the business can keep its business logic stored
Now that said, there is still the actual engineering problem of leveraging the capabilities of the underlying technology. For example, being able to map your 4 core program to a 16 core system and have it work is one thing, actually utilizing 16 cores is another. Extend to all technological advancements
> I agree. Additionally, a company can own and update a business language of their own design at their own pace and need.
Yes, although I was more thinking of this being in most cases a SaaS offering because the implementation of the DSL needs solid non-LLM engineering. Larger companies will be able to afford an internal platform team, but most won't.
> Now that said, there is still the actual engineering problem of leveraging the capabilities of the underlying technology. For example, being able to map your 4 core program to a 16 core system and have it work is one thing, actually utilizing 16 cores is another.
I see this more of an extension of existing trends, for example Wordpress themes with limited customizability. Most DSLs won't allow full utilization of the underlying technology, on purpose because that's the only way to keep it simple. I do see this leading to a split into two classes of developers: those who only target simple DSLs using an LLM, and the "hard" engineers who might use LLMs every now and then, but mostly not.
>Or worse, they were doing some dark management technique of "well he's really hauling ass right now, if he makes the original deadline we'll be ahead of schedule, and if he doesn't we have the spare capacity"
As a business analyst who has worked a lot with executive teams at multiple companies, this is almost always the case (ime). Deadlines are only shortened down the chain, never extended. The assumption is that if it cannot be done then they will simply not administer any consequences and classify it as "not realizing the upside".
The only reason it is almost always and not always, is because sometimes a different thing pops up that needs to get prioritized first, so it is communicated that the first thing isnt actually as important as it was yesterday and this other thing is now the most important.
Now obviously I cant speak for everyone at all teams, but as far as boring corporate default behavior goes this is the safe path for executives. If your boss is doing otherwise, they are going out of their way to do it.
The takeaway as a worker is that you should not treat any business goal or deadline ask of you with the same level of care as you would a personal favor. When something really needs that level of care, your boss should pull you aside and break character and make it a personal favor to them, not the business.
As far as "Ownership" goes, it is just a pissing contest as far as I can tell. if you own a task but cant do the task, you just send an email to someone who can do the task so that the task gets done and you can report the task is done and get your ownership credit. the person who did the task was used as a tool in this regard. So high performing managers just try to get ownership of as much as they possibly can, as there's no meaningful difference between who sends that email.
The easiest way to break the mental barrier caused by short form content for me is to remind myself that knowing something is not the final product. The final product is trusting the knowledge and communicating that trust. Any information that finds itself to me without me asking for it is inherently less trustworthy and less communicable than information I hunted for with intention
Short form content feeds are like unloading a dumptruck full of random items into your driveway. Is it actually better if all that stuff you didnt ask for is real information that needs to be organized and pieced together with what you already know without any of the associated context that helps you do that? Or is it better if you know 99% of it is trash and you dont need to remember any of it?
I think a tool like this is great for people who want to use short form content intentionally, and personally that only happens when I am bored and in need of a new topic to research. I think of all short form content like marketing/ads, just showcasing something i might be interested to dig into on my own. It's how i used StumbleUpon website back in the day.
But I have noticed I am rarely using short form content with intention. its because i want to check what my friends have posted, and then with the extra downtime i scroll a little bit, and sometimes get stuck
i would place my money on the vast gap between effort and reward. you dont even need to think "if i swipe..." because the thought takes longer than the action. So why would you stop to consider what you might have to gain by swiping when you can literally swipe and find out faster than you can think about it?
Then you go about your regular day and suddenly everything feels harder in comparison. You have to think about what youre doing, you have to coordinate or plan your actions, you have to put work in. The swiping rots your ability to maintain and coordinate your chain of actions.
thankfully it is much more of a daily cycle than a true addiction. if you spike dopamine in the first hour of being awake, you effectively addict yourself for the day. whether you follow through on that addiction or not is less relevant, it kind of shapes your baseline. So you might just have a harder day than usual because it was a dopamine deprived day and instead of having a low baseline you primed your brain for a very stimulating day by having a high-dopamine activity in the morning.
1 more perspective to add: while i did not know the NSA program was called prism, it did give me pause to find out in this thread. OpenAI surely knows what it was called, at least they should. So it begs the question of why.
If they claim in a private meeting with people at the NSA that they did it as a tribute to them and a bid for partnership, who would anyone here be to say they didnt? even if they didnt... which is only relevant because OpenAI processes an absolute shitton of data the NSA would be interested in
a surprising amount of people seem to genuinely believe law enforcement (generally, not just police) is at its core based on discretionary actions guided by their moral values and not a morally neutral action upholding agreed upon contracts
that is to say, the law only applies to you if you do "bad" things. and ill be honest, there is a level of truth to this to me. from a practical standpoint, it is infeasible to formally understand every nuance of every law ever created just to be a citizen. The underlying core social contract does appear to be one of "if you do 'good' things, generally the law will agree with you and if it doesnt then we wont hold it against you the first time"
*the important caveat here is that this leaves a rather disgustingly large and exploitable gap in what is considered good vs bad behavior, with some people having biases that can spin any observable facts into good or bad based on their political agenda. Additionally, personal biases like racism for example, influence this judgement to value judge your actions in superficial ways
Which is why its backwards and makes no sense that we allow / cater to "well nothing said I couldnt do that" as a reasonable defense. The value judgement system should go both ways. then a lot less would need to be written down to begin with, because it wouldnt be an arbitrary set of rules on every front but the codification of a specific value judgement system with clarifications on how to align yourself to it.
We really shouldnt be allowing things like, "this is a location dedicated to peace and non-violence" and then section 32 subsection C part 2 (a) says "we can kick the shit out of you if you photograph the premises". Just a random made up example for communication purposes, but it applies to all sorts of things. Personally, I think it should apply to social media. there was a implied sense of privacy to it, that people could not see my information if i did not approve it - and then the fine print says except for the company running the page who can sell the information to whoever they want. Like WTF was that about? I wont say its an ignored thing, there plenty of outrage over it - but i think its incredibly fundamental to whats going wrong and feeding this information overload in a dangerous / stressful way.
Companies shouldnt need 10 pages of TOS to say all the obvious things, and appealing to this idea that only whats written down is what matters shouldnt allow for just any arbitrary set of things to be written down and called reasonable
Less about value judgements. More about outsourcing to people/brands we trust.
When it comes to software licenses, we aren’t lawyers, so the informed people will use a primer created by a trusted 3rd party. Maybe GitHub’s “which license is right for me?” Page.
Who to vote for in local elections is usually decided via one of the following: (1) I know/met the person, (2) I trust the party they affiliate with, (3) I trust the newspaper/news source which recommended them.
Academic papers are usually thick, long, and inaccuracies are difficult for anyone not in that field of expertise (or something relevant like statistics) to identify. Most people require an overview of the article by an expert. Hopefully (but unlikely) they can choose one which is impartial / minimally biased and who can give an opinion on how definitive or significant the findings are.
The last 2 decades have been spent with companies learning to exploit this. For example, every large tech business would prefer all your code was MIT/BSD and they have spread advice to this effect.
The other caveat is if you're a historically persecuted minority group, then those assumptions toward law enforcement don't usually apply. And now the political opposition to the current US administration is also feeling that way.
I have never considered this perspective, but this fits very well with people's actions. Thank you for sharing.
To me, the system of codified law and courts makes intuitive sense, and most people misunderstand or abuse the system. But other people's intuitive understanding of the law as you mentioned is a much easier way to understand and actually IS a rough approximation of what the system does.
the bigger caveat here is where some people can do "bad" things but the law doesn't apply to them. This breaks social contract and exposing law as a tool for the powerful to control the masses (this is still true, but by not doing it blatantly, the contract can still be somewhat upholded).
In an ideal world, when this happen, it should be anarchy until a new set of government, that uphold the law equal to everybody, is enacted. But we don't live in ideal world.
the rubiks cube is in P space, but has a large state space
towers of hanoi is also in P-space, has a trick to latch onto, and is still popular - though maybe this strays from being interesting and is popular for different reasons
> towers of hanoi is also in P-space, has a trick to latch onto, and is still popular
Is it? It's popular to introduce people to, and it's fun to play with for a bit, but once you understand how to solve it, there's basically no value in replaying it.
I see short form content vids occasionally of people doing large ones. i wouldnt say no value to replaying it. the value is more of a catharsis akin to power washing or cleaning things up i think than it is out of puzzle-like interest. so not a great example but i was looking for the simplest feasible example
there is also the unspoken alignment of those people from being of the same age / time period.
humans additionally have a spectacular ability to use absurdity and loose definitions of things in ways that play with this unspoken alignment to communicate other ineffable ideas and/or build community. I'd go as far as to say we play with this unspoken alignment more so than we say exactly what we mean.
I would think this behavior, although often seen in meme culture nowadays, would be highly relevant to religious communication and documentation of the past. I think actually trying to write down an exact meaning is a modern phenomenon and is observed in the over articulation and general structure of "legalese", for which I dont think the bible resembles very much in spirit in any way.
Now that said, there is still the actual engineering problem of leveraging the capabilities of the underlying technology. For example, being able to map your 4 core program to a 16 core system and have it work is one thing, actually utilizing 16 cores is another. Extend to all technological advancements
reply