And when you can measure how effective those ads are in changing human behavior; it's easier for businesses to spend there. As an American, I would love it if pharmaceutical companies couldn't market to consumers. It would free up money for research or lower prices.
You're correct. I was trying to build on the parent comment about convenience.
Worst case this is an option I don't take, best case is that this would give me more time (shorter commute) with the benefits of being able to read or create.
Burr is named after Aaron Burr, founding father, third VP of the United States, and murderer/arch-nemesis of Alexander Hamilton. What's the connection with Hamilton? This is DAGWorks' second open-source library release after the Hamilton library We imagine a world in which Burr and Hamilton lived in harmony and saw through their differences to better the union. We originally built Burr as a harness to handle state between executions of Hamilton DAGs (because DAGs don't have cycles), but realized that it has a wide array of applications and decided to release it more broadly.
Right it was a bit of a joke. Originally stefan and I presented frameworks when we were at stitch fix -- stefan called his "hamilton" and I called mine "burr". His was better for the use-case. But then we wanted to build something for state machines as opposed to DAGs, so we called it Burr. I wanted the git tagline to be "make your agents go burr..."
There can be plenty of prior art; however, AI can democratize that knowledge. There are many things it's helped me accomplish which are trivial to people who are far more knowledgeable than me.
I am not sure what specifically you mean by "AI" here but it's a bit naive (no offence) to think the field is so dumb that it haven't been looking at "AI" for a few years already. See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.02.560464v1 for instance
nostos/limbus, genoox, engenome, congenica are a few companies/products that I have heard about and have been around for years (the last one was defunct from what I heard last however).
I thought that the author had used AI to vibe code the software to help him look through the genomic data
"Like all of the others, this WGS came back non-diagnostic. Unlike the others, my heartbreak had passed the point of hopelessness and I was ready to do something. I contacted every lab we had worked with and requested access to all genomics files. I was going to figure this out myself.
"After a few days, my initial results shocked me. The prototype I built not only accomplished my original goal of confirming that Warren seemed healthy (spoiler: everything is fine), but it found the genetic mutation that took our first son Owen’s life. How could something I built so quickly outperform the top sequencing lab in the country?"
Apple hasn't "invented" most things, from the personal computer, MP3 Player, or smart phone. They tend to revolutionize the things by making them work extremely well.
if by 'revolutionize', you mean 'let everybody else spend time, effort and money developing the idea, and once they've proven the market they buy an interesting company in the space with tons of patents, shut down everything they'd done before and make their interesting and take credit for the revolution, meanwhile, their new presence in the area mutes actual innovation, because they use all of the oxygen in the room'... sure, yeah, they do that... but the revolution was coming whether Apple participated or not.
Before Apple Silicon, who was making equivalent laptops? Highly competitive performance, great battery life, instant wake from sleep, pristine build quality, etc.
Forget before Apple Silicon, who's making an equivalent laptop now?
Exactly, they deliver products that are better than their competition and thanks to that they got extremely rich. It's a great example of capitalism working as intended.
I see AI as a barrier remover. Unfortunately some barriers are good or minimally necessary.
I think we'll need to revert to artificial barriers such as bonds, e.g., if you want to do a PR to my repository you need to pay a 10 dollar bond. If the PR is good and I want future PRs, you keep your bond. If it's slop and spam, I get 10 dollars for my time.
This is entirely too much friction in the wrong place. Public open source will simply die before a system like that ever becomes the norm.
The previous barriers worked because they were organically perfectly in line with a contributor's internal incentives. A contributor gains very little benefit from submitting a patch; the likelihood is infinitesimally small they'll ever get any career advancement, financial recompense, or even much community recognition for it. At most, it shifts the burden of maintaining the code they're contributing from themselves to the community / long-term maintainers. The real incentive for a contributor was making the patch, because they get to see the feature or fix they want made for the software. The previous barriers were in making the patch, and contributors would overcome that friction to gain the benefit of having the patch they want. Moving the barrier to merely submitting the patch after it has already been made will simply result in people not bothering, because there is very little incentivizing them to deal with the friction.
1) more reliance on systems to track reputation across projects. I'm sure Microsoft, in the form of GitHub, will love to sell you a partial fix to the same problems it so enthusiastically helped to create. But there are the familiar problems of surveillance, identity theft, office politics, and system-gaming, and it doesn't on its own offer an onramp for new players.
2) in-person coding tests at the same Pearson test centres where people take most of their Cisco (and accounting, and ...) exams today. Not as expensive or inconvenient as you might think, but not the cheapest and easiest, and it certainly has the same concerns re. surveillance and identity theft
I agree with the bond in theory, but that would entirely stop contributions from people in economies where a shady maintainer could keep their code, and their weekly food budget.
We already have trouble with people maintaining open source projects without getting paid, now you want people to pay for the privilege to participate in free work?
I would day that the dotcom was directionally correct but the timing was wrong. For instance you had pets.com in 1999 but in 2020 you had chewy.com. It's like you had broadcast.com in 2000 but by 2020 you had YouTube that was making more in ad revenue than the next 4 largest competitors.
reply