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

This article could have been a sentence: a senior engineer does engineering and does the work of the PO/PM too.


I am freelancing on the side and charge 100€ by the hour. Spending roughly 100€ per month on AI subscriptions has a higher ROI for me personally than spending time on reading this article and this thread. Sometimes we forget that time is money...


My favourite saying is: "dumb people get old too".


Whatever the Chief People Officer of any company has to "say" is plain PR and as such can't be taken seriously...


That can be generalized a bit more. Whenever an executive with a designation starting with 'chief' gives some sort of advice to ordinary laborers, be very very skeptical and suspicious. There are exceptions to this rule - especially in startups, small companies and among domain specialists. But it's always a good idea to think deeply about who benefits from these advices, before accepting it.


Really sharp reasoning. This can be reversed to define an extra ordinary manager: don't care about your head count and just be a fucking grown up who's emotional state does not depend on his team's performance. IMHO this results in having a high head count and a team performing pretty well. Kinda stoic wisdom. Go and figure...


They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.

Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".


  They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.
I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world.

I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?


Meta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.


Given that OpenAI has publicly stated that they're working on monetizing free users (ads), I think they can make ads targeting as good as Meta can.

This is why Meta is all in on AI by the way. With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.


>With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.

People are on Facebook to interact with other human beings, not LLMs. People won't leave Facebook to use ChatGPT.


https://openai.com/index/group-chats-in-chatgpt/

Creeping. ChatGPT is becoming more than just a "talk with an LLM" app.


> Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million [...] users?

I am pretty sure they will be able to monetize it. But there is a big difference between "generating revenue" and "generating profit". It's way cheaper to put ads between posts of your friends (like FB started out with ads) then putting ads next to the response of an LLM. Because LLM responses has to be unique, while a holiday photo of yours might be interesting for all of your friends, and LLM inference is quite expensive, while hosting holiday photos is cheap. IMHO this is the reason why the 5th generation of ChatGPT models try to answer all possible questions of the world in one single response, kinda hoping that I am going to be happy with it an just close the chat.


I am happy to read this here. I manage a team of 3 and code half-time. We are heavy on XP, because I introduced it. At the beginning it felt strange for the team but in between the enjoy the empowerment it comes with.


> Honestly I think lesson 7 is nobody's normal.

There are only two types of ppl: "the wrong kind of crazy" and "the right kind of crazy". Why would I want to connect with the wrong type of crazy? Ok, I don't work as a waiter.


I wish I would not have a standard post for topics like this:

Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation suicided a way sooner, later, more silently, or at all? We will never know...


Surveillance, as typically deployed, cannot _stop_ the acts of abuse. It may be helpful in locating evidence that they occurred, but by that point, you've already allowed nearly irreparable harm to a child.

Even if it did work it would be completely ineffective at reducing the number of victims. Even if it somehow did by proxy then criminals would simply get smarter and find new ways to completely evade this system.

I have a large amount of disrespect for people who should know all this yet push these types of solutions anyways.


Sad but true. Many such cases as well not only limited to this field. There is a huge scandal in the Netherlands where it has been shown that Tax officials have repeatedly, and knowingly, did unlawful things which literally drove some people to suicide, and did irreparable damage to lots of people / families. They also repeatedly lied to parliament about this.

We have the proof. We do fuck all about it. And yeah, the Dutroux case (as well as e.g. Rotherham c.s.) hit hard. Too hard for most regular people to even properly come to terms with it.


It would have been interesting to see how an Elasticsearch like system performs on this task.


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

Search: