anthonyskipper

There is plenty of room for open source models that "require" a subscription to be used or obtain working updated binaries. Same as any open source platform.

I'd be happy to pay a small monthly fee to license the model to run locally. I'm already paying for Claude, GPT, Gemini,etc.

You should checkout startups. They would blow your mind.

I think it is funny that it's sewer, because a sewer is also a underground way around things, which is a good description of the out of band solution here. So the name checks out.

This is pretty awesome. Super relevant for the time because AI controlled workflows are desperate for a out of band solution like this.

The main thing I wonder is how well supported is it in cloud environements? AKS/EKS/etc?

The obvious business opportunity here is for some lawyer to start running an AI service to do these kinds of things. Anyone who subscribes is a client of the lawyer, who owns the chatbot infrastructure, which would be protected under attorney client privilege.

The fake key for real key thing seems like a problem. A lot of enterprise scanning tools look for keys in repos and other locations and you will get a lot of false positives.

Otherwise this is cool, we need more competition here.

This is the real issue. Mac is not a target for a large number of triple A games, and rosetta made that possible. Apple has a vested interest because if they support rosetta you don't need to by Windows laptops to game... you can just use your Mac. Otherwise they are routing money to their competition.

This is awful. I love playing games on my MBP and the latest crossover releases have been amazing in the ability to play almost all windows PC games at full speed. Losing rosetta means crossover is dead.

You would hope that apple would open source it, but they are one of the worst companies in the world for open sourcing things. Shame on all their engineers.

I can see why that sounds sensible, but my personal obsevations are that heavy duty power users almost universally prefer the bigger screens, and those people also want the highest level settings. Most people I know who want smaller screens are not serious power users.

I can see an overlap with people who want smaller computers who also want max power, but I just would not believe that is a significant group. (again, all personal observations)

You don't pay your doctors, insurance does, so I mostly expect insurance will replace doctors with chatbots as soon as its feasible. Sadly in a large percentage of scenarios that would actually be an improved outcome. (yes, not all and those are the ones that will probably kill you... but come on, medicine is such a disaster its should be completley rebooted)

He is a horrible apple shill, but he does have great insight and articulate reasoning on why things are the way they are. We should figure out where the block is and remove it.

It has NOTHING to do with regulatory capture.

The US is polarized with the republicans not wanting any socialized health care because they don't want to care for people not like them. You can't organize and correctly run a health care systems when half you politicians actively sabotage and burn it down.

>M4 Pro has less memory bandwidth than the P40, so it would be slower

Why do you say this? I thought the p40 only had a memory bandwidth of 346 Gbytes/sec. The m4 is 546 GB/s. So the macbook should kick the crap out of the p40.

I built a serverless startup (GalaticFog) about 8 years ago, had to shut it down. Market never developed. There were some obvious lessons learned.

First most companies thought they needed to do containers before serverless, and frankly it took them a while to get good at that.

Second the programming model was crap. It's really hard to debug across a bunch of function calls that are completely seperate apps. It's just a lot of work, and it made you want to go monolith and containers.

Third, the spin up time was a deal killer in that most people would not let that go, and wanted something always running so there was no latency. Sure workload exist that do not require that, but they are niche, and serverless stayed niche.

I think they say that because it used to be only supercomputers that could do a petaflop of compute. So taking what used to be a datacenter(15 years ago) and cramming it into a small device is a pretty impressive feat.

I work in a large enterprise company, have both windows and mac machines, and excel works equally great in both, but more and more excel runs in a browser.

We mostly email links to spreadsheets running in cloud. So it really doesn't matter what your OS is any more from an excel perspective, as long as your computer can run a modern browser you are good.

This is only partly true. AI works really well on very legacy codebases like cobol and mainframe, and it's very good at converting that to modern languages and architectures. It's all the stuff from like 2001-2015 that it gets weird on.

I agree with this. But the reason is that AI does better the more constrained it is, and existing codebases come with constraints.

That said, if you are using Gen AI without a advanced rag system feeding it lots of constraints and patterns/templates I wish you luck.

Some of us look forward to that future where you mostly just interact with AI. The one depressing us is not turning running over our goverment to AI. The sooner we can do that the better, you can't trust humans.

My company uses the Dora metrics to measure the productivity of teams and those metrics are incredibly good.

This is pretty par for course for startups. I've seen companies that raised money ask their VCs to not to invest in competitors many many times.

Not soon enough, and it will never happen for tier-1 cloud providers, and Microsoft is one of those.

Anyone who recommends using an AI detector should be the first person fired. No one cares if you use AI or not... judge the fk'ing writing and the quality of the work and stop being a blocker to progress. Same goes for education... and any where else AI touches... fighting calculators and slide rules was a stupid waste of time, and so is fighting AI.

Well both things can be true at the same time.

I agree Numenta missed the boat, but it doesn't mean that book wasn't prescient. Numenta just didn't get there first, wasn't a fast follower, and blew a huge lead in AI. It may still end up the HTM is one of the final state solution,s but they are so far from ever being able to capitalize on it that it is unlikely to even matter if they invented the concept.

I thought Hawkins's book "On Intelligence" was amazing. It's a bit wild how close things have followed to the direction he laid out.

Scala is the perfect example of why you want to limit expressivity. It's seems so cool and awesome at first, but then you have to support a code base with other engineers and you quickly come to the view that go's limited expressivity is a blessing.

Hilariously I was using a gen AI (phind) and asked it to generate some scala code and it no joke suggested the code in both implematic scala and in java style, and all you had to do is look at it and you could see java style was 1000X easier to read/maintain.

This feels like the opposite direction of where we should be going. Open source should be more like science where you will never get paid unless some company or lab is paying you to do it, and there is a hard focus against commercialization. Parens approach seems revolting

I work at a big company where we both consume and contribute to open source. Our single biggest problem in open source is vendor license issues like confluent and redis, where we can't get that service from a cloud provider without hoops.

I get the point here but for many organizations and types of companies this is a terrible and unworkable idea. A lot of companies have to wait till weekend for maintenance (e.g. trading/market making apps), and so your only options are deploy on weekend which means weekend work or on friday afternoon/evening. Once week starts there are no good times to do a release. So for a vast number of super critical systems friday is THE day to do a release.

Yes, that means potential weekend work if it goes wrong, and it increases the odds of a bad monday... but both of those can be fixed with good testing/automation.

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I mostly play on laptops and I find that a MacbookPro M3 max feels about the same as my Razer gaming laptop with a 4090 in it.

It's the same silicon on laptop and desktop with apple gear though, and that isn't true with x86. The desktop chips with an edgy heat profile are nearly twice as fast as the laptops if not more. But compared to xbox or PS the apple machines still win. So it's really specialized gaming desktops that win, even though it is by a solid margin.

You can run AAA games on any apple silicon, and the perf is usually superior to anything else on the market except specialized gaming PCs. The real issue is that there is a small selection compared to xbox/ps/pc.