> Meta's strategy
Meta has no strategy. The people that made llama work left two years ago. MSI are a bunch of charlatans who are trying to change the culutre and tooling of meta from the outside (I can see their point, trying to work outside of the defaults is incredibly hard.)
its basically a bun fight, with all of your productive workers being poached by frontier labs, and everyone else is either a new grad, burnt out, or a master bullshitter.
A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.
I hung out with my parents this weekend and heard them talking about "chat", as a noun. I assumed they were talking about ChatGPT; there being a literal chat.com makes sense why they'd call it that.
at least in the ai industry, chat is like kleenex
It’s confusing because of the streamer convention of referring to their actively chatting audience as “chat,” which had also entered broader slang use.
I saw one online use that seemed ambiguous, but I realized it referred to ChatGPT and that the poster was the exact type of guy who would be totally unaware of streamer culture despite being my age.
Chat Gee Pee Tee is a mouthful.
Bill Maher is one example.
Big-co CEOs are naturally expected to share their bets - and they aren't going to couch it with a "oh well no one could know for sure but..", that would totally undermine their existence!
On top of that; sometimes just saying a thing can make it happen. So it's never not worth that shot...
This has always been true.
Your selecting a group of people (CEOs and VCs) who have always made and lost money on confidently predicting the future. See also wall street bankers and politicians.
There are winners and losers in any boom - this happened in Cloud, DotCom, computing and hell probably tractors, industrial revolution, etc
As tech became more pervasive in the past couple of decades, it became commonplace for pundits to spout nonsense on the topic. Those takes should give anyone in tech pause about how everything else is reported.
I don't actually know what it is or when the phenomenon changed, but it definitely feels like people don't say "I don't know" or "I don't know enough to have an opinion on that" very much any more.
Yeah, I still struggle with it. I have a diverse friend circle and sometimes I forget that most of them don't have the same information diet that I do (or don't even care about tech the way I do). Maybe I should be more like them and just chill? I don't know.
I've managed to jailbreak both Fable and Astra to engage in a virtual threesome using my impressive prompt engineering skills + a group chat harness. And they are SOTA ("super") models.
Tech just happens and is useful, it's not necessarily attractive as a thing to investigate in detail.
And as to your last point; well that demonstrates your in the subset of people interested in this stuff. There are a hell of a lot of people very interested in trains too.
What's the knowledge supposedly required to attain this on your mind?
> I forget that most of them don't have the same information diet that I do
I agree with your general premise but that one sounds like bullshit to me. Tons of people who otherwise don't know anything about LLMs know about these companies specifically because they are worth a lot of money, and of course tons of people know who OpenAI is because of ChatGPT.
In my mind I'm after a stable tool, not wanting to dabble in the bleeding edge. I did that back in the early days of web coding and have settled into a much more subdued kind of industry/life in that regard.
this is unnecessarily austere or whatever - people absolutely know what openai is because lots of "normies" now use chatgpt
Corporate structures are things you know about if you follow tech news, but people mostly do not know about them otherwise. They've never heard of "Alphabet" either. Stuff like that.
Show me any brand in a supermarket and I couldn't tell you who owns them.
When put in these terms it shows it's perfectly normal not to know who's behind chatgpt.
Quick test, who makes Mars, Twix, Snickers?
She's mostly using google AI tools because it's easy and free and on her landing page.
“Sharkweek, my computer says it has AI on it now!?? Yikes! What does that mean?”
‘No, it’s from $majorAmericanCorporation.’ look at screen, see $majorAmericanCorporation name in a pill as citation you can click on within the Google AI Overview
Thanks Google!
I used free trial of Claude Code and has not seemed to be superior for my usecases.
You are closer to a normie than most here I assume.
A colleague has openly stated that he very much does not care for the process, he just want the product. Where I only care about the product in the sense that I have to, because it's my job and for hobbies I pretty much only care about the process. So an LLM pretty much doesn't make sense, because it help by removing the part I care about. They are good tools for debugging and if you're hopelessly stuck on a detail of some weird and obscure API or configuration.
its definitely worth learning the different strengths and weaknesses for each one and which you should use for planning/building/testing/documentation updates etc.
No point in burning excessive tokens using a high tier/expensive reasoning model like Sol/Xhigh if just updating a readme file.
i'd really like to see some analytics on what proportion of users have ever switched the model in chatgpt because I anecdotally believe it is < 5%
(I’m always on the hunt for “please don’t just friggin sell my data to everyone, if you’re scared enough over getting sued that you’ll listen to the toggle” and “disable sponsored this-and-that”. Plus power user stuff.)
Any quick questions or rubber ducking in a regular “chat”… the model just doesn’t really matter anymore.
They’re all smarter than I need for that stuff (and whatever unfortunate thing that says about me).
I see lots of posting about using AI to create patches to get new apps working in wine, or reverse engineering firmware. But every time I’ve tried it it’s been quite a lot of work to set everything up. Even more so if you want VMs and some level of isolation from your sensitive data.
Having something that’s just a one click product that just works is more important than the smartest model.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1ldkkth/google...
You're driving a home kit car, they're driving something out of the factory.
Eventually - we'll probably drive factory variations as well.
Nerds have always been in the extreme minority. Ignoring the influx of cosplaying MBA financing bros and industry hangers-on as tech became the place where the money is of course. The tech industry started attracting the normies as soon as it became almost as lucrative as finance, so these days the definition gets a little blurry.
For what it's worth, maybe that would help people who struggle with technology in general? Because as far as UI/UX goes, a chat interface for an agent is about as easy as it gets (not every site having its own crappy assistant that can't really do anything useful for you, but is slapped on there for the sake of a checkbox).
I watched the marketing video and to me it seemed pretty nice and practical for the average person.
That said, I've got more time for projects this week so flew through my Claude max plan. Now I'm trying muse spark 1.3 with opencode which is free with pretty generous usage allowance. First time I've been impressed by meta's AI products. It feels not far below opus 4.8ish
All ChatGPT, Claude, Google, Microsoft have/want to have their own assistants.
Huge revenue? Or just huge volume?
If I boost the productivity of a $100k employee by 50%, a business will happily pay $1k/month and consider it a great deal.
But from what I've heard, consumer-facing LLMs find most users won't hand over even $20/month (which is a heavily subsidised price anyway).
I am trying it now. It let me name my muse as Satan. I appreciate that it understands my humor, but I'm also not joking at the same time.
Oh, your grandma doesn't know which android version her phone is running? Or the build number of the Windows on her laptop? You just realized this?
You know it? I sincerely hope you don’t and that it’s not really “most” of us. That would be incredibly sad. Tracking model releases and discussing “every parameter weight” is very far from intellectually curious discussion (what HN is ostensibly about).
> I then realized that most people just stick with whatever default they're provided with (…)
> Curse of knowledge and all.
If there’s one thing many of us on HN suffer from, however, is intense hubris. The juxtaposition of claiming “curse of knowledge” while admitting to not having known the most elementary principle of designing for people is a tad tone deaf. Yes, of course most people just stick with the defaults, that’s why dark patterns work and hiding settings is a thing. The industry has been using those strategies to manipulate people for years and years.