One thing this article gets wrong is how OpenAI isn’t an application layer company, they built the original ChatGPT “app” with model innovation to power it. They’re good at UX and actually have the strongest shot at owning the most common apps (like codegen).
I don't disagree. But that's a pretty good reason to make sure you're making something other than the obvious common apps if you want a big chunk of acquisition money.
I think the UX of chatgpt works because it's familiar, not because it's good. Lowers friction for new users but doesn't scale well for more complex workflows. if you're building anything beyond Q&A or simple tasks, you run into limitations fast. There's still plenty of space for apps that treat the model as a backend and build real interaction layers on top — especially for use cases that aren’t served by a chat metaphor
I wouldn't call it familiar, it's a weird quasi-chat. They didn't even do the chat metaphor right, you can't type more as the AI is thinking. Nor can you really interrupt it when it's off over explaining something for the 20th time without just stopping it.
It's missing obvious settings, has a weird UX where every now and mysterious popups will appear like 'memory updated', or now it spews random text while it's "thinking", it'll every now and then ask you to choose between two answers but I'm working so no thanks, I'm just going to pick one at random so I can continue working.
People had copy pasta templates they dropped into every chat with no way of savings Ng thatz they they added a sort of ability to save that but it worked in a inscrutable and confusing manner, but then they released new models that didn't support that and so you're back to copy pasta, and blurgh.
It's a success despite the UI because they had a model streets ahead of everyone else.
If your startup is selling to US government, sure, but otherwise I don't think there is much unreliability in selling SaaS, courses, or whatever gadget to US residents?
I agree there's no need for personal insults here, it's not nice to see especially on HN where one comes to expect better, but I think you can understand the place of exasperation it was coming from. The American government has become vociferously hostile in a very pronounced way recently and for the people on the receiving end of the hostility it feels like an attack in itself to hear "what's the problem, why are you worried?"
The opinions on the government differ, the losing side appears to blame all and everything to the government. Although tariffs, if any, will definitely have an impact, but it doesn't seem like any startup will be blocked from selling to the US, and I don't see why will one not want to sell to the US if there are buyers there.
We will get Greenland one way or another. That's a horrid statement if you are Danish (and worse if you live on that island). Realistically it's a horrid statement, anyways.
From a UK perspective (and I'm not a CEO or anything) it looks pretty volatile over there. Tariffs, radical changes to government funding, widespread corporate overhauls... . Predictability is surely desirable when considering dependencies.
If you depend on the US for defense, and the USA says that the victim should just surrender, there's a risk the same might happen to you. It's quite black and white in this case.
Probably the best turn based strategy game out there. Spent a few hours on this latest edition over the weekend has all the same core mechanics as 6 with a new ages system. Feels pretty fun so far!
It would as open source improvements would start to exceed performance of 3.5 for specific use-cases. At the very least they would have to make it fine-tunable.
Sam Altman said recently that they are already working on making GPT-3.5/GPT-4 finetunable, they are just limited by the availability of compute (partially since none of their SFT infrastructure uses LoRa).
I had previously assumed it was safety concerns, since I don't see what stops someone from finetuning away all guard rails.
One pitfall i've found with TypeScript is getting too clever with type definitions. Too much abstraction can end up eating up a lot of time (especially with a large team). This happens because as you say, the error messages are verbose and hard to follow.
Once we started keeping our type definitions small and simple we've found it's hugely beneficial.
Very much right. If the TypeScript team created basic typing without endless permutations of infinitely clever ways to create composable type hierarchies, I'd like it more.
The problem with the endless permutations of infinitely clever ways is that people actually use them. You end up with shims and meta-shims and meta-meta-shims and adapters to turn this unwieldy behemoth into that one in just the right place. Very soon, you get something like Kubernetes, in the sense that the entire structure is imperiled by the weight of its own complexity. <ducks>
It is nowhere close to replacing a PM (sorry to the all the hypistas bigging it up) but it's quite helpful as an aide.
reply