Minor typo. Author's name is - Badrish.

I understand this helps if we have our own LLM run time. What if we use external services like ChatGPT / Gemini (LLM Providers)? Shouldn't they provide this feature to all their clients out of the box?

This works with claude code and codex... So you can use with any of those, you dont need a local llm running... :)

Using this, if a first time user logs in, could we share automated scripts, that they can execute to create sample workflows?

Yes. Record an automation flow, export the code, and share it. New users can run it as-is on our infra, or pick modify and run elsewhere.

I would love to switch from Mac. But Mac hardware is so resilient & haven't seen that in PC world.

I just got a new work laptop: the ThinkPad X1 Carbon gen13. It's gorgeous: weighs a bit over 900 grams, has an amazing matte OLED screen, Intel Lunar Lake that sips power (1-2W idle) and is fast enough to compile Rust if needed, amazing keyboard, touchpad is great but I just use the trackpoint, everything works from the box on Linux (they even deliver it with either Fedora or Ubuntu, but I installed CachyOS).

Suspend: works always. Battery life: great, the whole day. Wifi: works always, connects fast, works fast.

The build quality is really nice, especially the carbon fiber body that doesn't feel so cold/hot to touch.

If you have older Mac (based on the Intel CPUs), then it may actually already work out of the box for you to run linux. I'm running Debian on Macbook Pro 2015, fully replaced the original system and I haven't looked back.

Dell, HP and Lenovo have been phenomenally resilient for us, going back more than 2 decades.

You can run Linux on Apple Silicon with Asahi Linux

There's a whole lot of asterisks that you're leaving out of that statement.

M1&2 yes with slight caveats, m3-5 not really (at least yet)

What do you mean by that? As a long term windows user I've never had any issues running my laptops and PCs for years and years.

Inspired by this, I am wondering, can a LLM play AmongUs game & win? How about tagging multiple LLMs to play with each others with humans watching?

Questions:

1. Who is responsible for adding guardrails to ensure all papers coming in are thoroughly checked & reviewed?

2. Who review these papers? Shouldn’t they own responsibility for accuracy?

3. How are we going to ensure this is not repeated by others?

reviewers are unpaid. its also quite common to farm out the actual review work to grad students, postdocs and the like. if you're suggesting adding liability, then you're just undermining the small amount of review that already takes place.

There needs to be prestige for tearing down heavily flawed work.

Article resonates with me. This time around, we asked cursor to estimate giving PRD & codebase. It gave very detailed estimate. Currently in the process of getting it down to what leadership wants (as in the article). AI estimates much better & faster than us. We are bringing it down much faster than AI. Sometimes changing the PRD or prioritizing the flows & cutting down scope of MVP. Honestly AI is a great tool for estimation.

Another reason I could think of is Security. There is a bunch of cheating goes on there. As a seller I lost my laptop to a scammer. Seller paid be until I shipped & cancelled the transaction. Buyer asked me ship it to their son’s address. Since I didn’t use buyer’s address registered in their eBay account eBay/Paypal didn’t pay me either. AI accelerates these scams.

If google is serving 90% traffic & others are unable to enter - Doesn't that mean google is doing something right for the customer and others are unable to outcompete it? Isn't this how life works?

Google is allowed to be big, be better and win users. But happy customers is not the full test of monopolization. The real question is, "Could a meaningfully better search engine realistically displace Google today?” If the answer is no, then competition is broken

> "Could a meaningfully better search engine realistically displace Google today?”

ChatGPT clearly demonstrated that displacing Google is possible. All previous monopoly arguments seemed even more flimsy after that.

I think you’re proving the monopoly argument yourself: if they only way to compete with Google is an innovation that generations of scientists have been working towards, it does paint a grim picture of competition in this space. Besides, are we ignoring Gemini?

Google already used AI and language models before ChatGPT came out. If you wanted a state of the art search / recommendation engine you needed that innovations from scientists already.

That's what I am saying: if you had a better search/rec engine than Google, good luck making it useful without Google's search index, acquired to a large extent thanks to their dominant market position. This doesn't sound like healthy competition. ChatGPT had to change the whole game to be able to compete.

ChatGPT did not build a search engine though. They built something else (equally impressive) and then were able to use their weight to enter the web search business where most sites now have to allow them in.

While it's good that building other products is possible, it doesn't detract from the point that search engines are a de-facto monopoly.

(Not quite the same as a search engine, but to create a base model in an LLM, they pretty much did "download the whole internet" for it)

This is a woefully naive view on the nature of monopolies. You could have made the same argument for Standard Oil.

Is the user's choice to use google a meaningful one when they're effectively the only game in town?

Google must be right for the customer because Google pays billions of dollars to be the default search engine for all the major browsers. And end users are notorious for changing application defaults.

Competition only works when we have an even field.

Like shooting your opponents in the leg before a Marathon will surely improve your chances, but it doesn't mean you are the best out of them. This is like the very tenet of markets, reaching as far back as Adam Smith.

"Funnily" enough this requires some external system that upholds the rules of the competition, e.g. governments. That's why busting monopolies make sense.

...No. Not at all. Not in the case of Google and generally that's not "how life works". If it was true, why would Google spend so much money to be the default search engine in so many devices/browsers?