Because no highly indebted company is going to "strongly hint" that they aren't just hemorrhaging cash like everyone assumes--they will absolutely let you know. "Hints" are just best effort accounting aesthetics to seem like the dream is just around the corner.
People who live on the internet assume this is true because they only deal with people who also live on the internet. Just because we're not all documenting everything that we do to a nebulous public doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Much of what happens in the social world isn't articulated or available for scientific study. You might be surprised to know that bars, clubs, gyms, concerts, trivia nights aren't empty. "In decline" is the sort of state that's can only be articulated in abstract terms. Stop rationalizing your loneliness as a societal ill. Getting to know people is your problem and society offers many solutions.
> In the UK, for example, there's a well documented trend of pubs and clubs shutting as business declines.
Just to be clear, this is a sign of a cultural shift. Pubs are an old English tradition that people aren't interested in as much anymore. They would rather go to a sushi restaurant or go get curry. Same thing has happened with fish and chips shops.
Pubs and clubs are declining due to a cultural shift amongst the young. Alcohol isn't cool for the younger generations and a larger cohort of young people can be found in the gym and running around than ever before.
If I was an investing man I'd stick all of my money into Garmin, running shoe companies, gyms and the like.
In my opinion most Anthropic models are the opposite, scoring well on benchmarks but not always way on top, but quietly excellent when you actually try to use them for stuff.
I think all the retail LLM's are working to broaden the available context, but in most practical use-cases it's having the ability to minimize and filter the context that would produce the most value. Even a single PDF with too many similar datapoints leads to confusion in output. They need to switch gears from the high growth, "every thing is possible and available" narrative, to one that narrows the scope. The "hallucination" gap is widening with more context, not shrinking.
Definitely my experience. I manage context like a hawk, be it with Claude-as-Google-replacement or LLM integrations into systems. Too little and the results are off. Too much and the results are off.
Not sure what Anthropic and co can do about that, but integrations feel like a step in the wrong direction. Whenever I've tried tool use, it was orders of magnitude more expensive and generally inferior to a simple model call with curated context from SerpApi and such.
Couldn't agree more. I wish all major model makers would build tools into their proprietary UIs to "summarize contents and start a new conversation with that base". My biggest slowdown with working with LLMs while coding is moving my conversation to a new thread because context limit is hit (Claude) or the coherent-thought threshold is exceeded (Gemini).
I never use any web interfaces, just hooked up gptel (an Emacs package) to Claude's API and a few others I regularly use, and I just have a buffer with the entire conversation. I can modify it as needed, spawn a fresh one quickly etc. There's also features to add files and individual snippets, but I usually manage it all in a single buffer. It's a powerful text editor, so efficient text editing is a given.
I bet there are better / less arcane tools, but I think powerful and fast mechanisms for managing context are key and for me, that's really just powerful text editing features.
This is my concern as well. How successful is it in selecting the correct tool out of hundreds or thousands?
Different to what this integration is pushing, the LLMs usage in production based products where high accuracy is a requirement (99%), you have to give a very limited tool set to get any degree of success.
This has been my experience as well. The moment you turn internet access on, Kagi Assistant starts outputting garbage. Turn it off and you're all good.
you hit the nail on the head. my experience with prompting LLMs is that providing extra context that isn’t explicitly needed leads to “distracted” outputs
I mean, to be honest, they gotta do both to achieve what they’re aiming for.
A truly useful AI assistant has context on my last 100,000 emails - and also recalls the details of each individual one perfectly, without confusion or hallucination.
Obviously I’m setting a high bar here; I guess what I’m saying is “yes, and”
That's a tough pill to swallow when your company valuation is a $62B based on the premise that you're building a bot capable of transcendent thought, ready to disrupt every vertical in existence.
Tackling individual use-cases is supposed to be something for third party "ecosystem" companies to go after, not the mothership itself.
"AI first" has the makings of an Amazon Go situation. You theoretically shed labor spend by using technology solutions but in practice have low-paying workers do most of the actual work. "AI first" just seems like a dog-whistle for "we're struggling to figure out how to grow so we're going to cut labor and make it seem like innovation".
The trick is not have "wealth" (ie property ownership/rights). Societies that were nomadic with low/no property ownership culture did not have wealth inequality since there wasn't that much "wealth" to have. They had their hierarchies but those were weak, more akin to the kind of hierarchies you have in families ("everyone listens to grandma" kind of hierarchy). Wealth inequality is obviously synthetic (and this study is kind of silly), since you need a governing body to maintain property rights (along with creating what today are the most valuable legal ownership structures, like intellectual property). A corporation, a mortgage, a deed, equity, all the defining elements of wealth, are exclusively legal constructs created/administered by governments. The wealth of every wealthy person you can think of is based on their rights to property, not the property itself (i.e stocks, deeds, trademarks, copyrights etc.). This requires a very elaborate infrastructure to maintain and a culture to support it. Wealth isn't a given and actually is very easily destroyed (when governments are toppled or property rights are taken away--Communist rebellions of the twentieth century are a good example).
It's true that formal wealth systems (like land, stock ownership and trademarks) require an elaborate legal and cultural infrastructure to maintain — but only at scale. The absence of such systems doesn't eliminate wealth inequality, it just changes how it's enforced.
In less formal or collapsed systems, wealth and resources are often controlled by a ruling oligarchy or individuals whose hard power acts as a de facto property right.
For example, many argue that Vladimir Putin is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, despite lacking formal ownership on paper — his political and military power effectively grants him control over immense resources. Wealth inequality ultimately stems from control over resources, whether legitimized by law or enforced through power.
Power people have power because of power is more of a movie trope than the actual mechanics of the world you live in. Wealth is exclusively abstract legal constructs in the modern world. You might be surprised to know that even Putin's wealth is tied to legal ownership structures, (regardless if they're maintained by bogus shell companies, he has effective rights to the property). Whatever niche counter-example comes after doesn't influence how global inequality is administered or experienced by the majority of people.
It's funny how the "I never use a smartphone" argument moves from one technology to another. AI hype is ridiculous but it's also a technology that will probably be used by other people for things that you've decided not to use it for. It'll either be for their benefit or to their detriment, but they'll have it on their smartphones. Thinking about how it will be used will probably yield more insight than why you don't want use it.
This just sounds like cases of performative management. Very lazy implementation of what to them is just"productivity-future-tech" of the moment, so they can say "successfully transitioned into AI-driven development" on their CV's. AI is just software and it either fits your strategy or it doesn't. In the same way no company succeeds simply because it started using software, no company is going to succeed simply bcs they started to use AI.
You're welcome. I know too many upper middle class educated people that don't want to have kids because they believe the earth will cease to be inhabitable in the next 10 years. It's really bizarre to see and they'll almost certainly regret it when they wake up one day alone in a nursing home, look around and realize that the world still exists.
And I think the neuroticism around this topic has led young people into some really dark places (anti-depressants, neurotic anti social behavior, general nihilism). So I think it's important to fight misinformation about end of world doomsday scenarios with both facts and common sense.
I think you're discrediting yourself by talking about dark places and opening your parentheses with anti-depressants.
Not all brains function like they're supposed to, people getting help they need shouldn't be stigmatized.
You also make no argument about your take on things being the right one, you just oppose their worldview to yours and call theirs wrong like you know it is rather than just you thinking yours is right.
Not sure if you're up on the literature but the chemical imbalance theory of depression has been disproven (or at least no evidence for it).
No one is stigmatizing anything. Just that if you consume doom porn it's likely to affect your attitudes towards life. I think it's a lot healthier to believe you can change your circumstances than to believe you are doomed because you believe you have the wrong brain
