People quote the "GPT-2 is too dangerous to release" thing as if it were wrong, but given all the slop all over social media and how it's used to create division and attack social cohesion, he was clearly right.
"incredibly" is doing a ton of work here. I do not think its doing even moderate work on visual design, but it can spew out a lot of ui that looks arranged ... ok.
This is still not in the range of shippable UI for top end companies. Maybe for internal tools and enterprise.
At our comapny we limit to protoypes at most and even find it limited there.
Look, I don't want to argue about something dumb like that, but you can give it basic instructions of what the UI should look like, how to group things, and an example image from a designer, and it will nail the result. If you don't think that's incredible, that's fine. I do.
>This is still not in the range of shippable UI for top end companies.
Given the shit we've seen shipped by "top end companies" (all the way to Apple) I seriously doubt that. I'd say you're nitpicking from an artistic point of view or something.
Might need some additional prompting? I haven't tried fable but gpt 5.5 and gemini 3.5 flash are... Ok on first pass but if you're specific about what you want they can usually get it.
Dude, I've been using OS X/mac OS for decades, and working in UI as well. Apple ships all kinds of half arsed shit, compared to which even regular Claude UIs can be masterpieces (functionality AND look wise).
I think the goal is "private citizens: subscriptions; corporations: per-token billing." It's getting people addicted to LLMs on cheap subscriptions so that they can then force companies to pay for expensive inference.
> Nothing is subsidized. Subscriptions are profitable for both Anthropic and OpenAI.
Even if subscriptions are locally profitable (i. e., the cost of the subscription covers the cost of inference), they're still subsidized because they don't cover training and running the company; otherwise, these companies would be profitable.
I can see that being true, and it very likely is true. But isn't infinite VC money and no incentives to optimize operations the reason behind that?
Take a look at China for example - they have no access to NVIDIA, so they're trying to build their own hardware, they have no unlimited funding, so they try to optimize things.
And Anthropic is complete opposite of that - if NVIDIA were to triple their prices tomorrow, Anthropic would still pay them.
In the end, either we all somehow go mad and start paying Anthropic tens of thousands of dollars per month so support this madness, or we will go with whoever isn't lighting cash on fire.
> Take a look at China for example - they have no access to NVIDIA
Not true. Stop following US media spam if needed.
1. Very recently, the US did close a loophole on sanctions that allowed Chinese companies to use NVIDIA hardware outside of China i.e. before that was closed they all had access. The trick was train outside, do adjustments, ship the disks back and use non-NVIDIA in China, but at least the training and endpoints not hosted in China could all use NVIDIA.
2. There's been plenty of reports including fines and bans e.g. to Supermicro on smuggling NVIDIA hardware to China. I doubt it has been stopped. You can't catch everyone.
> I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs -- including the research and training that has gone into those models
We know roughly how much these companies spend and what their revenues are. Based on that, they'd have to more than double revenue (without spending more money) just to stay even, and that's not good enough given how deep in the hole they are.
> OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth?
Both are true. I mean, I'd be willing to spend a bit more than I do now, but not more than double, and neither are most companies. The company I work for is currently investigating how to reduce LLM spend, not looking to spend more.
Opposite opinion. I have the Huawei trifold, and it's by far my favorite phone I've ever used. I'm typing this on that phone right now, half-unfolded to square mode.
I don't care that it is a few mm thicker than other phones when it's in my pocket. It's so much better than a regular phone for everything from reading books to writing email to watching YouTube, and it's also a slightly thicker regular phone. It also has a pretty good UI for moving apps to side-by-side mode, which I use so often that I'm 100% sure I will never go back to a regular phone.
The UI is a bit odd at first, and there are obvious things that need to be fixed (like the invisible input fields), but by the time I had created an account, I'd gotten used to it, and I appreciate how incredibly fast it is.
I'm a bit worried about this:
> How does gitdot make money?
> We don't.
> We are fortunate enough to have raised a small pre-seed
> round from investors (...)
I'd rather know now how you're making money than find out in three years when I'm invested in the platform.
I didn't feign to comment about presentation style until someone's complaint sat atop the entire thread. As always it gets sidetracked into meta and arrogantly held personal preferences. Could it be HN otherwise?
So I say I like it and why. To, in again classic HN style, to be met by someone declaring that no, nobody on the entire planet likes it.
Upset? LOL, no, I guarantee you nothing on this shakes fists at clouds site upsets me. Humours me? Sure.
One thing about Jobs is that he was genuinely excited about much of the stuff he was showing, and even if you knew he was showing some useless BS (like coverflow, something I remember he absolutely loved), it made it interesting to watch. If today's presenters are in any way excited about what they're showing (or, more likely, talking about), that excitement has been polished away by all the takes they probably had to film.
They're not genuinely excited. Because there isn't much to be genuinely excited about. The "incredible new super-exciting developments" are usually "okay, I guess."
Once in a while you get something like the M series chips, but the rest is reliably mid - functional, maybe a few nice tweaks, probably some better-than-average design, but nothing revolutionary.
So all of the "We know you're gonna love it!" doesn't land, because it's literally scripted and rehearsed, not spontaneous.
Jobs was rehearsed and passionate, which was part of the appeal.
It's debatable if Cook has ever been genuinely excited about anything.
Cook is excited about shaving a few dollars off the BOM, a few days off fulfillment times, and adding a few basis points to the stock price. It has made him a great CEO for Wall St., Apple employees with equity, and a lot of retirement funds.
But I can't recall him ever using a computer. I cannot, in my mind's eye, conjure an image of him sitting in front of a Mac and using it, whereas fuzzy black and white images of Jobs' messy-like-mine home office with a Power Mac G5 shaped external hard drive on his desk next to a 30" Cinema Display are trivial to remember. Like, when was the last time we saw him organically using any of the products the company sells?
Maybe it's just because he doesn't have the rizz, so I've just never seen the pictures, but he just feels like a dude who never goes into the Settings app and tweaks anything.
reply