> It’s becoming cheaper and easier every day to start a company that will disrupt the established players and bring down prices.

The underlying assumption here is that there is always something established players won't try to buy out new companies or use their existing capital to screw over others

> The winners in the end will be consumers, and the losers will be the big AI companies

Right now that is not the case. Look at the PC industry. I worry for the autonomy of a consumer in the future. It's probably going to be something like here is your rental thin client PC with agents on a monthly rental plan. What's that? you want to build a game with your own gpu? No no. A consumer grade gpu does not make sense in this day and age. Just ask the agent to build your game. We need the gpu compute for better things

I guess this is the reason why the sunscreens from haruharu are now suddenly available in amazon

Due to "politics" my teams main responsibility went from developing ai agents to just testing out a chat it developed by another team.

When you spend 8 hours a day doing mind numbing tasks, tasks that won't help you land another job and is constantly under stress of being fired, its bad for your mental health

Did you think making unholy amounts of money came with no strings attached?

Sounds like you already have the skills to automate your new responsibilities.

It's hard to imagine if you have not experienced it. The air would still be hot even after the sun sets in some parts of India. Usually when wind blows over you you feel cool. With hot air it's like a blow dryer in your face. Just thermal energy being dumped on you making you feel even worse

That sounds absolutely awful

This is why I really like karapathy's idea of llms having spiky intelligence.

We would assume that if tasks A and B are closely related. Mastery in A would mean mastery in B but that doesn't always work with an LLM

I tried running fable on this ML model I've been building. It's basically a binary classifier to predict activity of a compound for a certain assay.

Fable detected that it's something to do with biochemistry and switched over to opus. Huh

The example I had was of Ramanujam. "It was revealed to me in a dream"

I love that man, and I hate that man. For many of the reasons already listed in this thread. He is smarter than Feynman, but also dumber than Feynman.

There is also the possibility that an LLM judge would be happy with some code that looks like LLM generated code. But a maintainer for a specific project might not merge it for stylistic reasons

I think the intent was to specifically train an LLM to judge what a specific maintainer would consider to be good style.

> The main idea is we provide documents to the LLM and it asks lot of questions which clear ambiguity and possible misconceptions the LLM might have

This kind of works but the difficulty is that you have to be very explicit about everything. It was mentioned in a spec document that a particular excel file is treated as a source of truth throughout the whole company and it is treated as an append only database. The agent still decided to add a check to see if a previous row was modified. It pushed back on its decision when asked why it decided to do so. "What if someone entered it wrong and had to correct it"? Valid question but it's not my teams responsibility to check for it

This check makes sense from a traditional development view point and that's why the agent did it. I would say it's good practice too but it's beyond the scope of the project it was working on. If what you are doing is beyond the norm you have to watch out for things like this

During the time that this paper was written agents were not really a thing. I would be more concerned about centralisation of work itself as a bigger concern