basket_horse

Woosh

lol as if they don’t have a birth certificate already

I used Claude extensively during an internal hackweek at my company to prototype a new data analysis application. Probably would have never attempted the project without AI. Now it’s in production with more than 20k weekly users. Almost never use Claude to dev on it now, but it definitely helped me get off the ground.

The boring reality doesn’t get as many clicks

Actually this is a good read on the problem they are trying to solve https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Inside-FDP-part-1-Und...

What you’re describing is literally the entire point of their Foundry data platform

Couldn’t agree more. Many designers I’ve worked with have been good at making things aesthetically pleasing, but have utterly failed to understand the nuances of the software. This is obviously not all designers, and there are good ones, but more often than not I find them struggling as they are not technical experts nor business experts. This is for b2b software.

Does anyone actually care about the above issues?

If yes, and you’ve solved them, people should be very interested in using what you’ve built. If people are using what you’ve built and are willing to pay for it, VCs will be interested.

If you haven’t solved them, but can validate they are real problems people care about, and have a path towards solving them, this should make a compelling VC pitch.

If they are real engineering problems but no one seems to care much about them, then it’s just a hobby.

No offense, but why should I believe you? The guy is famous because he has a track record of success doing similar projects. Of course that doesn’t guarantee success, but I’d wager it makes it statistically more likely than a random person. Starting a successful company is not all about good engineering.

Have you built a prototype and tried to pitch any VCs? Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?

This isn’t a bug. It’s the driving force of our capitalist society. We are not trying to weed them out. We are trying to encourage them. It’s pretty simple, when they get rich, so do all their investors.

Isn’t this true for any project ever attempted? The only reason this project exists is because millions have already been wasted on trying to do this in house

Or, the non politicized take is that they think the software could improve the data landscape of the NHS, which, if we are bring honest, has a lot of room for improvement.

I think you would need a lot more context to say if 0.019% is too high. If this platform is driving real operational improvements and is the core software backbone, then it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

Is there any proof that Palantir has ever leaked client data? From a security perspective they are one of the few companies that hold IL6, which means they can handle highly classified/top secret information.

They work with many international governments and companies, and I would imagine any sort of unapproved leak would be disastrous for their brand.

Why can’t people just acknowledge AI is good at some things and bad at others. Why does every post say AI is either groundbreaking or terrible. Get a grip people. It’s a tool.

I’m confused. Who do you think makes all the medical equipment like CT scans, MRIs, etc. because it’s sure not the government

How does it not make sense? Companies all over the world trust their proprietary data with Palantir platforms. There’s no way they would do this if they thought Palantir was actually sharing data without their approval. If they were found out to have done this, companies would cease to trust Palantir and stop working with them

This is like saying a Swiss bank would share your secrets because shady people use Swiss banks. No. Confidentiality is literally built into their business model. Getting caught sharing customer data is one of the fastest ways for their business to crumble.

This is a somewhat misleading description.

The first half is true. They bring in their FDEs to clean and organize your data.

But the difference in what they leave behind is what separates them from classic consultancies and pure tech companies.

They don't leave behind "insights." They leave behind a suite of operational (ie have write capabilities not just dashboards) applications that are "custom" built to actually solve those insights. I put custom in quotes because while the applications are usually bespoke to your company, they are built in Palantir's app-building product Workshop, which significantly lowers the cost of building these custom apps.

https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry/workshop/overview

So in the end, your company's processes are improved because your employees are using the apps that the FDE's built.

This is distinct from traditional consultancies because those will only leave behind the insights. Also distinct from most SaaS because those have a one-size-fits all approach, so you wind up having to change your company to fit the design of the application, where as Palantir builds its applications to fit your company.

This is missing the point. If you’re a 2 man team it’s much more important to have code that has a couple bugs in it but allows you to quickly find your product market fit. As opposed to perfect code with no bugs that is useless.

No one is disagreeing that tests are good in a vacuum / mature product. But if your focus is building a mvp, and you’re trading off the test time with other things, it’s not always worth it.

Screw “leadership” but consider for a second that you’re the leadership.

This has been my experience exactly. V1 was custom built for a single client and they loved it. As we tried to expand to multiple clients the v1 was too narrowly scoped (both in UX and code architecture) so we did a full rewrite attempting to generalize the app across more workflows. V2 definitely expanded our client pool, but all our large v1 customers absolutely hated it.

We never did a full v3 rewrite, but it took about 4 years and many v3 redesigns of various features to get our legacy customers on board.

But I swear this time is different! Just give me another 6 months!

You don’t know the half of it. If you really want to know the truth investigate big formula.

Couldn’t agree more. This entire comment section reads as a bunch of 20 year olds with no kids talking about parenting.

Do you have kids? The phone comment seems pretty out of touch.

I have two young kids in NYC and it’s objectively very expensive. Ignoring all consumables, daycare and needing a 2 bedroom apt triples our monthly expenses as compared to before having kids.

Of course for both of these it’s technically possible to solve. If we lived in the suburbs space would be cheaper and having kids wouldn’t double our rent. If one of us didn’t work or had grandparents willing to help daycare wouldnt be needed. In less developed / modern places these issues might not be as acute, but for many modern day families they are very real issues.

Regardless, kids are a lot of work and expensive, and I don’t see how being on your phone a bit changes that.

And that’s what’s happening here. The government is telling Anthropic to fuck off and they are finding someone else

The counter point to that quote is that someone whose salary depends on something likely has a lot more understanding of the topic than the average person. Not saying theyre always in the right. But the average internet user thinks they are way better informed than they actually are.

I took the “end” to mean the part of the exponential where it quickly trends towards infinity. So let’s say the x axis is time (by which you get more training data and more compute) and the y axis is model ability. So far, if we think we are in the beginning of the exponential, adding data/compute looks almost linear to the untrained eye in terms of model capability. But once you hit a threshold, where he thinks the model will start to generalize, a small amount of data/compute will result in a massive increase in model ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...

No, because as discussed AI also changes the nature of your job in a way that might be negative to a worker, even if it’s more productive. Ie, it may be more fun to ride a horse to your friends house, but it’s not faster than a car. Or as the previous example, it may be more enjoyable to make a shoe by hand, but it’s less productive than using an assembly line