Funny seeing your user name. When I worked myself to get ultimately nowhere but money that spends so quickly, the first thing that went was my music creation time.
Having children later in life is much harder/different than having them younger. You don't get to go back.
Your children are only children for a very short time. You don't get to go back.
Much of life is tradeoffs.
Their infrastructure is a commodity at best and their networking performance woes continue. Bedrock was a great idea poorly executed. Performance there is also a big problem. They have the Anthropic models which are good, but in our experience one is better off just using Anthropic directly. On the managed services front there’s no direction or clear plan. They seem to have just slapped “Q” on a bunch of random stuff as part of some disjointed panicked plan to have GenAI products. Each “Q” product is woefully behind other offerings in the market. Custom ML chips were agin a good idea poorly executed, failing to fully recognize that chips without an ecosystem (CUDA) does not make a successful go to market strategy.
I remain a general fan of AWS for basic infrastructure, but they’re so far behind on this GenAI stuff that one has to scratch your head at how they messed this up so badly. They also don’t have solid recognized leaders or talent in the space and it shows. AWS still generally doing well but recent financial results have shown chinks in the armor. Without a rapid turnaround it’s unlikely they’ll be the number one cloud provider for much longer.
The way AWS is structured with strongly owned independent businesses just doesn’t work, as GenAI needs a cohesive strategy which needs
1. An overall strategy
2. A culture that fosters collaboration not competition
Or at least an org charts to make them not compete with each other. (Example: Q developer vs Kiro)
I bet if you looked at the org charts you would see these teams don’t connect as they should.
That said, I'm guessing it would have been obvious to anyone once they start setting up IAM permissions and therefore not much of a pitfall.
So it's a good reminder, but I agree with you, maybe the article doesn't need to be so long to get to the same point.
Like any tool, there's a right and wrong time to use an LLM. The best approach is to use it to go faster at things you already understand and use it as an aid to learn things you don't but don't blindly trust it. You still need to review the code carefully because you're ultimately responsible for it, your name is forever on it. You can't blame an LLM when your code took down production, you shipped it.
It’s a double-edged sword: you can get things done faster, but it's easy to become over-reliant, lazy, and overestimate your skills. That's how you get left behind.
The old advice has never been more relevant: "stay hungry."
I imagine it’s one reason why X/Twitter made likes private as they want people to like things for the algorithm but not be judged for their likes.
If everyone agreed with you, this post would have been deleted off hacker news as well.
If you follow the logic of "information connected to people" however indirect, nobody would be allowed to post any visitor statistics and that is clearly absurd.
I agree with my sibling comments, your evasiveness isn't helping us make up our own opinions on this matter.
But HN's ethos is to inspire discussion and readability of it. Lack of a delete seems to be by design so that conversations are always readable.
You can see the spirit of that in their guidelines[0] such as "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive".
You can further see that in the design in how they handle deletes [1], where once "archived" things are permanent
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#editde...