Nothing personal, but unless you can link us to a public announcement made by Amazon, your statement is worth less than nothing.
Official statements made by a company are still poor representations of their current business plans, and don't mean anything 3 months later (no matter how much they pinky promise). But a HN post isn't even that.
Additionally Swami, our SVP of AI blogged about it separately and our CTO is tweeting about it - which is more than a number of products get in terms of coverage.
I didn't mean announcing the tool, I meant an announcement committing to the maintenance/support that users like the GP poster were looking for. My bad on describing that clearly, I'm gonna get clowned on in the comments and I'm not turning this around.
I understood what you meant. I was just trying to add evidence to support my claim that it was a real product and would be maintained. And yeah, votes on comments can be fickle.
I think one thing that concerns many people is that this looks like AI slop, which it clearly is according to the blog post.
I think this is a super interesting direction, but how can we trust the accuracy of this simulator? Agentic loops are great and all, but they can still miss plenty of things.
Or maybe a better question: where is the accuracy of this simulator going to be guaranteed enough that we should trust it?
To me, something like this is actually what vibe coding thrives the best at; tight, looped, easily verifiable, test-driven dev work. In fact, this is probably the field it can do with little or no intervention, if you're willing to waste tokens.
Is it? How is it verified that this catches all the potential edge cases of interacting with AWS? Or is handling all the edge cases of AWS not in scope?
Like, what am I actually getting here? Is it just happy path operations being correct here?
In the near future, every case will be a real edge case and every one will be a guinea pig.
The border between AWS and AWS emulator becomes fuzzy. And the users of AWS will be agents as well. A completely offline emulator will save a lot of resources and could be a great training ground for more focused (offline) models.
Back in the day, we assumed that when a major company open sourced code, that code would have problems. We invented all these things like ‘issues’ to deal with this.
GP statement still stands, actually being strengthened. This blog post doesn't even mention nor seems to care about maintainability or long-term support or anything that users will care about. Only talks about how cool the team is and how amazing they're at using AI, multi-agent workflows, and this kind of bs. It's funny how author talks so much about testing when they themselves also boast how they haven't written or reviewed any of the code.
>People spent decades building and optimizing Blender's GUI. It's battery and memory efficient, and super duper fast. We decoupled it, to give everyone a chance to build their own products with it.
Who is "we," and what's the long term plan?
It's a shiny presentation, but I don't see anything on offer more than a solo dev who pointed AI at the Blender codebase. I could do that myself, and many of the reasons I don't do that apply directly to why I'd never use this project.
I think the GitHub readme and the docs site are dishonestly presenting the state of the project.
I don't think people assume there is literally zero signal. I think their intuition is that the repurchase rate is low. Low enough that that if the advertiser knew the purchase was made, then the advertiser would serve something else with a higher predicted chance of getting a click.
It's easy to assign a straw-man a belief there is zero signal and talk down to it. The more nuanced idea that is less obvious goes like this: advertising is such a boondoggle that the aforementioned weak signal actually does represent a higher click-through than everything else in their ad inventory.
Advertisers working in predictive targeting like to tell tall tails about their analytical genius. That story about the Target ad campaign predicting someone was pregnant is their ur myth. The basis for their big swinging statistical analysis prowess. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to their carefully crafted image if they had to admit the peak of their profession is hoping people need a 2nd of something that's usually a less-than-once-a-year purchase.
From the jump the premise seems reasonable. Having a too much of an ego is a source of all sorts of self-imposed problems or create roadblocks in interacting with others. But this literally brings up saintlike detachment as "not far from the truth" in describing the extent they're advocating for.
I think the fact we take the temperature of the market and label it as a "strong" or "weak labor force" is a counterfactual to the idea there's equivalent exploitation.
It's mutually beneficial (otherwise one party or the other would terminate the contract), but that a wide window for the balance of benefits to shift.
>It would rather pursue more business opportunities.
You're agreeing with parent poster that they don't care to fight on principle (in the unlikely chance they hold any principle in the first place). You're just using avoidant terminology that skips the criticism inherent in parent's framing.
I'm commenting on how non-US laws may affect businesses, descriptively speaking, without prescriptively stating what I think that the law ought to be.
I am a US citizen and I approve of US-style free speech protection. If anything, I think that the US still has too much restriction on speech (e.g. DMCA limits on "anti-circumvention" software.)
However, I also approve of democratic government. If people in other countries vote to treat speech differently than the US, I wouldn't want to live under those laws, but I also wouldn't say that they are incorrect. I think that democratic principles mean implementing the will of the majority, even if I think that the majority is foolish. There are some things that I would fight against (not just lament) even if approved by the will of the majority; I can't fully reconcile my conflicting impulses, but I acknowledge them. All of this would have been a long and distracting aside to my original point, which was that most American businesses of note operate under multiple countries' jurisdictions.
> the feared bottom of the slope was never reached
Hard disagree. Sometimes it's avoided, any other time we just go into cope mode. We discover on the ride down that the bottom isn't so bad. Turns out our collective control mechanisms didn't fail ourselves if the initial assessment was wrong.
You can't just buy peanuts without shells. They grow in that shell! That's what a peanut is!
reply