I am also curious about this, how people wrap their head around multiple changes in multiple features at the same time?
I personally, can handle only one feature at a time, prompt the AI, refine the changes, re-plan, review changes, rewrite parts when necessary, but my mind is still with one feature.
How do you folks manage multiple parallel feature development at the same time?
> how people wrap their head around multiple changes in multiple features at the same time?
Long before AI I routinely had 5 parallel development environments I would flip between. (I do distributed systems stuff, think HPC-adjacent clusters, when you're too big for Kubernetes and too small for supercomputing). One would be running long-running tests for my current changes, one being reset to a clean state, and 3 more on standby so I had 100% "duty cycle" (the reset took a while). You got used to multitasking.
Because this is funded and published for the following reason:
> FDD conducts in-depth research, produces accurate and timely analyses, identifies illicit activities, and provides policy options – all with the aim of strengthening U.S. national security and reducing or eliminating threats posed by adversaries of the United States and other free nations.
Because you don't go and look for it but instead expect others or The Algorithms to do it for you? Sorry to be so blunt but this comes across as a "why isn't anybody doing anything!!" when many people are doing many things, just not you. Please do some googling before commenting.
You can do it on a personal level, but when everyone else is overworking you, your manager will compare your output based on your peers, and based on it, you might be negatively impacted
Realistically, if you have 300M, you and your direct family are settled for life. So, I want to propose 1B cap on net worth, if its more than that for 12 months straight, surplus goes to government, if your net worth is down after that, government obliges to return it partially to make it to 1B.
People, who are eager building things and innovating, will keep building regardless, power hungry will try to find other ways to enrich themselves, but eventually they will give up (e.g. having 10 kids, each with 1B net worth)
So let's say we implemented this and the government suddenly receives billions of credits from wealthy individuals. Would anything actually change? Is this what's holding us back from repairing all the roads to a fine standard? From implementing universal basic income?
It seems to me that if one tried to actually spend those credits we'd simply get inflation. Prices for roads, food etc. would just go up.
We definitely want to work on inequality, but I think numbers above 1B net worth are just weird quirks of the system. Musk is powerful because he's powerful, the number is just a reflection of that. Keeping his number below some arbitrary threshold isn't going to combat his power.
We need to tackle the problem head on: we need to stop individuals from amassing so much power. We get lost in this stupid abstraction called money. It's not what matters.
This is so arbitrary and incredibly naive. How did you come to with 300M, why not 300k or 300 billion? How would you determine the worth of rare, illiquid or intangibles? What about wealth held in trusts or companies? How does the accounting work if I borrow against my wealth? What happens when things change value dramatically in a short period of time? And the government is going to "make billionaires whole again" if they crater their wealth?
You are asking me about implementation difficulty, difficult implementation doesn't mean idea is not worth it.
One example:
* 300k vs 300M - doesn't matter if I said 100M, 200M, 550M, if you think 300M is not enough for you and your family to afford anything, not sure how other people are surviving for even less.
Here is why I think this is good:
1. Ambitious people will still be ambitious, its rare some genius kid says: I know this is 100B idea, but I won't build it, because I will only own 1B of it.
2. Limits the power, when power is really limited, people will be forced to focus on different things. For example, if you had plans to take over the world by making $10T and creating an army to kidnap president of another state you don't like, then you would know, it is not possible to make 10T, its not only about how much, its about suppressing hungry animal in you by capping your limits.
3. There is a chance "bad" ambitious people, will be converted to real philanthropist, because they know it doesn't matter to own more than 1B anyway and they can't own it.
> You are asking me about implementation difficulty, difficult implementation doesn't mean idea is not worth it.
I can agree with that idea, to an extent. If something is near impossible (not saying this is), then it does become not worth it.
The other questions the parent posed are more interesting to me:
> How would you determine the worth of rare, illiquid or intangibles? What about wealth held in trusts or companies? How does the accounting work if I borrow against my wealth? What happens when things change value dramatically in a short period of time?
Another I wonder is that (ignore all specifics of the values, just the concepts matter here), let's say you own a private business that then becomes valued at 1.5 billion dollars and this individual has 20 million dollars liquid. How do you tax that? The government can't take one third of the business, at least not without a lot of issues (in business dealings and individual rights), and the 20 million liquid wouldn't come close to what this plan would value. What do we do then? Plenty of billionaires don't really have liquid cash and forcing liquidation of assents in such a way seems like it would be very difficult.
I'm all for more taxes on higher net worth individuals, but I think there's a lot of talk to be had on how one can implement this. It's going to be really difficult to find a way that makes sense.
> I can agree with that idea, to an extent. If something is near impossible (not saying this is), then it does become not worth it.
FATCA law makes this very possible in the US.
> How do you tax that? The government can't take one third of the business, at least not without a lot of issues (in business dealings and individual rights)
I would say that the government can and should and simply be a passive share holder with no voting rights.
Obviously, I do not know nitty gritty details of economy and finance, but if I would implement this tomorrow I would start taking the equivalent of surplus and start from there to understand more.
For example, say individual has 20M liquid cash, 2 houses each valued at 5M and 1.5B in company shares (based on averaged company value for the last 6 or 12 months):
* whatever you can immediately spend is prioritised first, so you keep your 20M + 2 houses, then surplus is $530M of your company shares
* this equivalent number of shares will be moved to government trust, individual doesn't have any control over it, if person dies next day, government keeps the money (lets simplify for now and keep voting rights as separate question)
* let's say after shares moved to gov. trust, during next 6 months company value halved, gov. returns all your shares, if stock dropped only 10%, you get equivalent back to make your net worth 1B
* regarding taxation, I would keep it as it is today and tax on "realization event"
There are around 3.000 billionaires in the world, even hiring 10 dedicated people for each billionaire to calculate all this stuff on a quarterly basis is not expensive
What do you think all that money you taxed from billionaires will do in the hands of the “government”, pay the bills for 12-24 months? Then what’s your plan after the government has spent it all? No amount of taxation can solve a spending problem.
1. Assuming Elon is curious person, he will still build it out of curiosity.
2. Assuming Elon is not curios person, just power hungry, he will probably think its not worth building it, but someone else who is curious will build it eventually. This is even better, because when power hungry person owns such thing, they might use it for bad things as well (e.g. to gain more power, eventually interfering with elections, oh wait, it did already happen)
3. Government will build, because government will have more money now, but then we should be even more careful who gets to the top. Assuming people won't have more than 1B, maybe there will be less lobbying? because its not worth as much as it was before?
honestly, I don't think it was money related, because look at James Webb telescope, I think NASA achieved lots of good things, IMO they could have built SpaceX as well, it was probably more motivation and organisational impotence and bureaucracy from management (including higher ups than NASA).
Ah, so your idea is the good old “only the emperor who controls the violence apparatus should have a lot of money and power”?
It’s not a very original idea, and it has been tried many times, and it failed many times.
> but then we should be even more careful who gets to the top
Right, so “for some reason only the greedy power hungry psychopaths get to the top in the current system — let’s fix it so that there can’t be many of them, only one government who has power to take away other people’s wealth and concentrate it immensely, surely we will figure out how to make sure it’s not filled with greedy power hungry psychopaths as we go”
> There is ZERO concern of the current US administration about the welfare of Venezuelans
100x times this!
US administration doesn't care about the welfare of most human beings in the world (including in the US).
We saw it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen and now Palestine. Having an assumption that this move was made for Venezuelans and now they're liberated from evil is wrong.
Iraq was probably against Israel's interests. (Israel hates Iran, Iraq hated Iran. US taking out Iraq made Iran stronger which made Iran more threatening to Israel)
He didn't say not to attack. It says in there that he told Bush that Iraq was a threat, but that he shouldn't occupy Iraq or try to build a democracy there because it won't work. The rest of the article is 2007 hindsight.
I feel like OPEC scales up/down production on a whim more than Iran produces.
Unless you mean the potential for a boycott like what happened back in the day. However the geopolitical situation has changed enough that i think that is exceptionally unlikely.
I don't think Israel is capable of a ground invasion and i don't think USA has the stomach for it.
I suspect they will just continue to try and economically strangle iran and pick off their allies one by one in the hope of an internal revolution (or wait until there is so much economic damage they aren't relavent anymore)
The psyops online is quite amusing and insane, painting this as a victory for Venezuela. And weirdly by pro-Israeli account on Reddit.
By now my radar assumes Israel is somehow connected like many other events we've witnessed in the past. Venezuelas president was quite staunchly against Israel and it's interests, close with Iran too.
Israel is just an extension of the US in the middle east under the branding of Judaism. The desire is to weaken and eventually ignite the region in conflict. Already taking place between Saudi, UAE, Yemen etc. Weakening takes time.
Funny list of countries. Ask women in Afghanistan how they were treated with US presence vs. now. Ask jews in Palestine how Hamas treated them vs. Israel. Ask people in Yemen how they are living right now, but be sure to talk to them directly instead of writing to them, because barely anybody there can read. Their leaders just love them so much, they don't want them to read any bad news.
If you ask women in Afghanistan you will hear different views. People in the cities had a better life during the American occupation but in rural Afghanistan women were often worse off than under the Taliban. The US propped up warlords, some of them real monsters, and those controlled a lot of the country side. There was no good side in Afghanistan and the US should have stayed out, instead of propping up one group of oppressors to try to defeat another.
I don't think I understand what your point is? Are you implying that the US should have what? Stayed in Afghanistan forever? What solution would you have proposed there?
That dude is a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft, doesn't need your "resume driven" label, his resume is good enough already.
Why don't you accept it as, dude is experimenting and learning new tool, how cool is that, if this is possible, what else can I build with these tools?
May be not resume driven. But hearing MS and AI, I can't help but wonder if this is result of one of those mandates by "leadership" where everyone is forced to come up with a AI use case or hack.
isn't this is exactly the point of innovation and mandates?
"leadership" or real leaders, want people to experiment a lot, so some of them will come up with novel ideas and either decide to build it on their own and get rich or build internally and make company rich.
Not always, but in many cases when someone becomes rich with innovation, it is probably because there was a benefit to a society (excluding gambling, porn, social media addictions)
The pressure at those levels is even higher, as it is an unsaid expectation of sorts that LLMs represent the cutting edge of technology, so principals/DEs must use it to show that they're on the top of the game.
No idea if this is true but very sad if it is. This is a great argument for the concept of tenure, so experts can work on what they as experts deem important instead of being subject to the whims of leadership. I, probably naively pictured Distinguished Engineer to be closer to that, but maybe not.
Sadly, yes, it's true. New AI projects are getting funded and existing non-AI projects are getting mothballed. It's very disruptive and yet another sign of the hype being a bubble. Companies are pivoting entirely to it and neglecting their core competencies.
fair, but it doesn't mean some of them are genuinely experimenting and figuring out interesting ways to use LLMs, some examples I personally love and admire
* simonw - Simon Willison, he could just continue building datasette or help Django, but he started exploring LLMs
Some complexities are discovered along the way, people don't know everything when they start.
They could also drop the support after some time, but then it would have created other set of problems for adoption and trustworthiness of the project.
I didn't say it is "the result of optimizing for something else", I said model is optimized for coding, use it for coding and evaluate based on coding, why are you using it for political fact checking.
when do we stop this kind of polarization? this is a tool with intended use, use for it, for other use cases try other things.
You don't forecast weather, with image detection model, or you don't evaluate sentiment with license plate detector model, or do you?
When the tool isn't polarized. I wouldn't use a wrench with an objectionable symbol on it.
> You don't forecast weather with image detection model
What do you do with a large language model? I think most people put language in and get language out. Plenty of people are going to look askance at statements like "the devil is really good at coding, so let's use him for that only". Do you think it should be illegal/not allowed to not hire a person because they have political beliefs you don't like?
Neither is the bias and censorship exhibited in models from Western labs. The point is that this evaluation is pointless. If it's mission critical for you to have that specific fact available to the model then there are multiple ways to augment or ablate this knowledge gap/refusal.
This is super cool. Of course, it is possible to separate instrument sounds using specialized tools, but can't wait to see how people use this model for bunch of other use cases, where its not trivial to use those specialized tools:
* remove background noise of tech products, but keep the nature
* isolate the voice of a single person and feed into STT model to improve accuracy
* isolating sound of events in games and many more
I personally, can handle only one feature at a time, prompt the AI, refine the changes, re-plan, review changes, rewrite parts when necessary, but my mind is still with one feature.
How do you folks manage multiple parallel feature development at the same time?
reply