A small note: I found the styling of your post made it annoying to read. You shouldn’t highlight key words so strongly, especially using the same green you’re using for links. It makes it take mental effort to tell them apart.
Readit NewsMattRix commented on The first Media over QUIC CDN: Cloudflare moq.dev/blog/first-cdn/... · Posted by u/kixelated
MattRix commented on The Kuzma Self-Playing Guitar System core77.com/posts/137962/T... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
Huh, the mechanism it uses to fret the notes seems much more complex than I would expect.
MattRix commented on Let's get real about the one-person billion dollar company marcrand.com/p/lets-get-r... · Posted by u/bizgrayson
I think the biggest risk in having an actual one-person billion dollar company is the Bus Factor [0]
Billion dollar valuation depends on investors, investors will never pay that valuation due the inherent risk in a one-person company. They’ll force them to hire for redundancy.
That assumes that the value is provided by the person’s ongoing skills rather than their skill/luck in coming up with the initial idea/brand/product.
MattRix commented on Let's get real about the one-person billion dollar company marcrand.com/p/lets-get-r... · Posted by u/bizgrayson
This seems the closest you are going to get, but Mojang had dozens of employees at the time of the sale. One Reddit post claims there were 40 people there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/18mcpme/does_any...
Yes, but I think the point the parent comment was making is that the value was created by one person. He didn’t HAVE to hire those people and it still would have eventually made a billion dollars.
This isn’t to say that the other people who worked on Minecraft provided no value, they definitely accelerated the game’s success.
MattRix commented on Let's get real about the one-person billion dollar company marcrand.com/p/lets-get-r... · Posted by u/bizgrayson
So, why not then use AI to create all these billion dollar companies for themselves? Why sell access to the model?
Will there be a shovel that uncovers a billion dollar gold nugget? Why sell the shovel then?
you still have to find the nugget in the first place
Is probably more correct to say - my 2.5 year laptop can RETELL space invaders. Pretty sure it cannot write a game it has never seen, so you can even say - my old laptop can now do this fancy extraction of data from a smart probabilistic blob, where the original things are retold in new colours and forms :)
No, that would be incorrect, nobody uses “retell” like that.
The impressive thing about these models is their ability to write working code, not their ability to come up with unique ideas. These LLMs actually can come up with unique ideas as well, though I think it’s more exciting that they can help people execute human ideas instead.
MattRix commented on The vibe coder's career path is doomed blog.florianherrengt.com/... · Posted by u/florianherrengt
Neither musicians or authors are going anywhere, and it's kind of bizarre to say so.
People make music because they want to. They always have, since the dawn of civilization. Even if we end up somehow making music bots that can generate something OK, people won't magically stop wanting to make music.
And for both cases, it's important to remember that ML/LLM/etc can only re-arrange what's already been created. They're not really capable of generating anything novel - which is important for both of those.
“They're not really capable of generating anything novel”
This is one of those statements that can be comforting, but is only true for increasingly specific definitions of “novel”. It relies on looking at inputs (how LLMs work) vs outputs (what they actually create).
A multi-modal LLM can draw “inspiration” from numerous sources, enough to make outputs that have never been created before. They can absolutely make novel things.
I think the real question is whether they can have taste. Can they really tell good ideas from bad ones beyond obvious superficial issues?
Deleted Comment
Bitcoin is the only immutable peer to peer system ever created (barring advances in quantum computing, and even then the protocol can be updated). In a world headed toward web 3.0, generative AI content & virtual reality, I think there is tremendous value in a trustless and immutable peer to peer system. In fact, I think we NEED it, and should as a society happily bear the power consumption that underpins the security of the network.
Controversial, I know. However, already we cannot trust that a digital picture is genuine. There is currently no solution to this problem. In the near future, I imagine that the raw data of your camera will be associated with a token on a blockchain (not bitcoin, but a dedicated high-capacity blockchain). Such a system would allow us to determine that a picture was indeed taken with a physical device, and thus that the events depicted have a bearing in the real world.
My bet is that we are headed toward a future where blockchain is ubiquitous. Where everything of value is underpinned by a specialized blockchain. When you order groceries, the origin of the produce and raw ingredients are all embedded in blockchain. In virtual reality, every digital product has a specialized blockchain. Every kind of transaction; compute, assets, AI, will all be underpinned by trustless peer to peer systems.
All these specialized blockchains trade security for throughput. My bet is that Bitcoin will act as a security guarantor in our future digital society, where the state of every blockchain is periodically validated on the Bitcoin network. Thus, I bet that every transaction in the future will have an associated Bitcoin cost. Thats why I own a small amount of Bitcoin.
It’s not clear to me that most of those use cases will be served better by a blockchain rather than a regular centralized service… but also examples like the camera don’t really work, because someone could still use the camera to photograph a generated image (for example), or hack the camera itself.
On top of that, up until this point in time, Bitcoin has been the opposite of secure. The entire history of it is filled with people constantly losing money and being scammed with no real recourse.
> AIs like to write a lot of code
I vibe coded a greenfield side project last weekend for the first time and I was not prepared for this. It wrote probably 5x more functions than it needed or used, and it absolutely did not trust the type definitions. It added runtime guards for so many random property accesses.
I enjoyed watching it go from taking credit for writing new files and changes, and then slowly forgetting after a few hours that it was the one that wrote it ... repeatedly calling calling it "legacy" code and assuming the intents of the original author.
But yeah, it, Claude (no idea which one), likes to be verbose!
I especially find it funny when it would load the web app in the built-in browser to check its work, and then claiming it found the problem before the page even finishes opening.
I noticed it's really obsessed with using Python tooling... in a typescript/node/npm project.
Overall it was fun and useful, but we've got a long way to go before PMs and non-engineers can write production-quality software from scratch via prompts.
In my experience Claude Sonnet is much more verbose than Claude Opus, and writes worse code as a result. The difference is pretty striking once you try using them both for the same task.