It's not the techs fault. This person chose to use it this way. They could have also carved out 20 mins at the start of their workday to do the same thing

I disagree. They could've carved out 20 minutes at the start of their workday to do the same thing, but that's explicitly at the start of their workday – not during their free time. I don't know anything about this person, but I know that if I were using these tools the way they do, it would mean the complete obliteration of what little semblance of work/life balance that I have left.

> Give me the cold hard truth.

Does this actually work to get better answers, or does it now just say "the cold hard truth" instead of "the honest take"

I mean... that's actually amazing advice. Not because they would grow up to create browser startups. But because they would grow up to create web startups that succeed because of very fundamental of how the web is rendered.

Which is paulg's point really

This site exists because paulg created a webshop in a niche language (Lisp) and got a prototype bought out (and discarded) in the gold rush. No browser internals needed to make a fortune on the platform. Just rapid development of an application with natural monetization, and being in a place to do so way at the beginning.

Jeff Bezos did similar, but he did his own fulfillment and hired out the coding.

Where?

> I would expect an ethics team to build frameworks that can help train/eval the model that the company spend millions of dollars and months training is going to be aligned to the ethical stances the company chooses.

Which like any company will be entirely driven by legal constraints and money. Or just money if it's cheaper to break the law for profit and pay fines. There will be no "this is what's good for humanity, economics be damned".

Much like HR isn't to help employees but just the company.

I agree, and I don't think many first wave AI ethicists would be on board with that, which is why the field is in for a rude awakening for the next few years if not already.

I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg in the least, but one area a super intelligent lawyer would be fine at is being drowned in court filings and paperwork

The bigger problem with his argument IMO is that even with open models, it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning. They run the larger model (or collection of models), they can process more tokens through them in the same amount of time etc

I think there's a point of diminishing returns here. A more competent lawyer can only do so much if you're wrong on the merits, assuming your opponent also has a decently competent lawyer.

> it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning.

Is it? Legal is rarely a genuine war of attrition and delays are the norm. AI is years/decades away from not needing humans in the loop verifying output, legal more than most. Correctness is more important than speed. Main skill is doc search but most cases easily fit in modern contexts.

So I don't think legal in particular needs the fastest/bestest compute.

Naively, you'd think the judicial systems would invoke "judgement" on the underlying purpose of dumping content in the form of filings, paperwork, etc...

That is true… unless AI were to end up as a public good, available to everyone, not in the hands of a few oligarchs.

Radical times may need radically different approaches.

I think that's what's ringing to me about the whole piece. There is a large assumption of equity. There is this section header:

> Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools.

"access" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, yes everyone has access to the US healthcare system. Is it affordable for everyone? Not even close, but politicians will always phrase it that way as a non-agreement to proposals of universal healthcare.

This is the only valid future for tech like this IMO.

Should any kind of "superintelligence" exist, it must be a public good, available to all. Not controlled by a small handful of oligarchs and profit seeking entities.

I'm all for this and I'm keen to try it. I certainly don't want to take away from sharing another neat use case for learning.

But

> What you get is a beautiful animation that is 100% accurate and free of hallucinations

100% free of hallucinations when you're not an expert that can check it is impossible. LLM hallucinations are an unsolved problem.

Well go on then...

> The beauty of intelligence at this cost (even if it's not SOTA) is that it opens a whole bunch of new use cases. Test failure in CI? Have the bot automatically propose a fix, its cheap enough that you can discard it w/h issues. Test coverage too low? Auto generate tests on CI for every pull-requests! Monitoring server logs, continuous security audits and investigating every received exception now becomes possible.

I don't think this is the win you think it is. It's amazing that this is possible, but it introduces so much human overhead that you can drown in reviews and it can effectively slow you down more than a quick check and fix yourself.

The models need to get a lot more consistent in what they can and can't do before you can automate this stuff and only check the things you know the model isn't good at