I would think this type of behavior (ugh, or dare I say default mindset) by consumer-facing LLMs will always be desirable for ‘hard’ problems (things previously unsolved) because it’s a bit like having saftey mechanisms in place to prevent hallucinations for users incapable of verifying correctness of the output. You’ve got to do a little work to prove you understand that it’s hard but it’s still something the LLM might be able to accomplish.
I think this is also a healthy mindset for a person to have in many cases. If my boss asks me "go solve P = NP", as extreme example, I would also give some pushback.
I think his point is to do this to understand deeply what they can do, what they can’t do, and what they can almost do. And then find the highest value ‘almost’ use case and push there. Which doesn’t necessarily mean improve the llm, could be applying it in just the right way for the use case. Of course, the bitter lesson makes this hard and risky. But no more risky than investing your time in learning anything else these days.
> This isn't just a new feature — it’s a new way to build software
I imagine they smushed 2 of the most well-known AI-isms together on purpose here to troll the AI-weary. Might as well I guess, if this type of language annoys you then the whole feature probably will too.
The collective harm that this kind of language does to a human skill of writing by oneself is probably immeasurable (that is until some clever social science researcher finds a controlled way to quantifying this).
The full statement:
> This isn't just a new feature — it’s a new way to build software: open, collaborative, and powered by both human ingenuity and judgement and agent scale. Teams that build this way won't just move faster. They'll build things no one else can.
I am not sure how just drawing contrasts between two things without actually drawing any kind of causal relationship to explain _why_ something is better or _how_ it does it, came to be a good thing. It is the kind of vaccuous statement that some poor tired sod with his remaining system 1 capacity just YOLOd into the blogoshpere and, like you said, the weary who don't know any better get FOMOed by. PSA: you arent missing anything.
I was very into PC gaming during this era, and ran a decently sized gaming news website, and Carmacks use of .plan as a one-to-many microblog was really a decade or two ahead of what became mainstream twitter’s primary use case. None of the games I ‘covered’ had enough .plan activity by the developers to warrant an automated script, but I remember being really impressed by the sites that did it (usually id-centric ones like blues news or stomped I think?)
Such good memories. I think my whole career has been built around chasing the feeling I had when making that gaming site.
Effective and clear communication is really important and often really hard for engineers. It is said that one goal of stackoverflow was to help programmers learn how to write through practice, as it’s both very hard and very critical to their effectiveness:
Not a substantive comment on content but hopefully constructive feedback on presentation:
Holy moly, on mobile I was trying to read the example console screenshots/snippets and then it would just unexpectedly change. Took me a little while to figure out it’s some kind of carousel for the examples, and not more screenshots/snippets loading and pushing down content (or me going crazy). Please don’t do this on mobile sites, just let me scroll through the examples!
There’s the chance that you notice patterns emerging that become quite grating after listening to it for awhile, in the same way that LLMs tend to have subtle but eventually noticeable patterns in writing. Some people care, some don’t.
Will that be the case for the music that you are listening to that’s generated by AI, maybe? Maybe not?
By highlighting that the music predates generative AI, at least that’s something that you won’t have to think about.
At least, that’s how I read it. It’s like a ‘no artificial sweeteners’ label on a drink.
