This is a pretty good summary how it works for me, too. My main use case being the "advanced autocomplete" or what you call "typing for me".
But to answer the OP's question: I am on the same boat as you, I think the use cases are very limited and the productivity gains are often significantly overestimated by engineers who are hyping it up.
Sure, it's not like CloudFare centralizes enough of the internet infrastructure, let's also give them one of the few (more or less) independent browsers.
I think it is an interesting fit that makes sense. CloudFlare works on the web, and they aren't out here bubbling up how you view the web or altering it in any way, unlike Google or Bing which curate what results you get.
Why not taking two seconds to look it up before making such a false statement? From Wikipedia:
> Citizens of Greenland are full citizens of Denmark and of the European Union. Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union and is part of the Council of Europe.
There is confusion here because Greenland is not part of the EU directly (they were, they left) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Uni...
Its citizens are members of the EU but its territory is not. Greenland is part of NATO though, and has a trade alliance with the EU so its territorial status is very complicated.
It's always disappointing to see that level of aggressive ignorance on HN. I flagged your comment because you're lying and spreading misinformation. Greenland is associated to the European Union but is is not and never has been part of the European Union; it was previously part of the predecessor organization the European Communities but withdrew before the EU was founded. Next time take two seconds to look it up.
I never said it was a full part of the EU, I even posted the quote from Wikipedia that specifies the situation. But saying that Greenland is not part of EU is also wrong. Even though it might not be a regular member state, it is a territory of Denmark, which is certainly part of the EU.
> The promise of LLMs is not that they solve the single most difficult tasks for you instantly, but that they do the easy stuff well enough that they replace offshore teams.
But that's exactly the *promise* of LLMs by the hypepeople behind it.
>But that's exactly the promise of LLMs by the hypepeople behind it.
I do not know and do not care what the "hypepeople" say. I can tell you that, by pure logic alone, LLMs will be superior at simple and routine tasks sooner, which means they will compete with outsourced labor first.
LLMs need to be measured against their competition and their competition right now is outsourced labor. If an LLM can outperform an offshore team at a fraction of the cost, why would any company choose the offshore team? Especially when the LLM eliminates some of the biggest problems with offshore teams (communication barriers, round trip times).
If LLMs take any programmer jobs they will at the very beginning make those outsourced jobs obsolete, so the only relevant question is whether they have done that or are in the process of doing so. If they don't, then their impact will be minimal, if they do, then their impact will be massive. I think that this line of thinking is a far better benchmark then asking whether an LLM gets X or Y question wrong Z% of the time.
in the end, it all comes down to roi; if spending x dollars a month brings in an additional 5x revenue then its gonna be worth?
then again, i have some suspicion that alot of consumer-focused end products using llms in the backend (hello chatbots) expecting big returns for all those tokens spent may have some bad news coming... if the bubble starts popping i'm guessing it starts there...
I think what most people answering in this thread who are saying something like "10x" are missing is that this number does probably not apply to their overall productivity. Sure, some boilerplate task that took you 10 min of writing code now maybe takes 1 min. But I think people just take this number and then extrapolate it to their whole work day.
I mean if you everybody would be truly 10x more productive (and at the same output quality as before, obviously), this would mean that your company is now developing software 10 times faster as 2 years ago. And there's just no way that this is true across our industry. So something is off.
Caveats:
- Yes, I get that you can now vibe code a pet project on the weekend when you were just too tired before, but that's not really the question here, is it?
- Yes, if your whole job is just to write boilerplate code, and there's no collaboration with others involved, no business logic involved, etc., ok, maybe you are 10x more productive.
Suggesting that the most legally vulnerable group be careful isn't wrong, it is the reality for which they find themselves.
66%~ of the US either voted for this, or were indifferent about it, and are a group which cannot be deported/denaturalized. Perhaps that group should step up instead of the <1% who are most at risk from legal administrative threats.
I think it quite telling hearing born-Americans asking green card and naturalized citizens to be their "resistance" for decisions they themselves made. Reads like looking for cannon fodder, who can just be trivially deported/denaturalized while the immune citizenship sits back and points at how bad things are.
The group of people who voted for this needs to stand up against it and I don't see that happening because it requires admitting you were wrong and got conned and people would rather die than do that.
FWIW, I am not American and I don't live in the US. But yes, you are right of course. For some part of this group. But there are also many immigrants who can afford to speak up, because they are not necessarily refugees who would get deported back to a warzone or similar.
In the end though, the targeted and vulnerable group need to stand up for themselves, others won't do it. I know it sucks, but it's the reality unfortunately. And yes, others from more comfortable groups should also make a stand (and some people are), but history shows that not many will.
They probably do, they just don't give a shit. It's still the "move fast and break things" mindset. Internalize profits but externalize failures to be carried by the public. Will there be legal consequences for Waymo (i.e. fines?) for this? Probably not...
They're one-of-one still. Having ridden in a Waymo many times, there's very little "move fast and break things" leaking in the experience.
They can simulate power outages as much as they want (testing) but the production break had some surprises. This is a technical forum.. most of us have been there.. bad things happened, plans weren't sufficient, we can measure their response on the next iteration in terms of how they respond to production insufficiencies in the next event.
Also, culturally speaking, "they suck" isn't really a working response to an RCA.
Waymo cars have been proven safer than human drivers in California. At the same time, 40k people die each year in the US in car accidents caused by human drivers.
I'm very happy they're moving fast so hopefully fewer people die in the future
"Move fast and break things" is a Facebook slogan. Applying it to Google or Waymo just doesn’t fit. If anything, Waymo is moving too slow. 100 people are going to die in seven days from drunk drivers and New Years in the US.
The most effective way of decreasing traffic deaths is safer driving laws, as the recent example of Helsinki has shown. That and better public transportation infrastructure. If you think that a giant, private, for-profit company cares about people's lives, you are in for a ride.
> The most effective way of decreasing traffic deaths is safer driving laws
This is almost hilariously false. "Oh yeah, those words on paper? Well, they actually physically stopped me from running the red light and plowing into 4 pedestrians!"
> If you think that a giant, private, for-profit company cares about people's lives, you are in for a ride.
I honestly wonder how leftists manage to delude themselves so heavily? I'm sure a bunch of politicians really have my best interests at heart. Lol
> This is almost hilariously false. "Oh yeah, those words on paper? Well, they actually physically stopped me from running the red light and plowing into 4 pedestrians!"
It's very clearly proven that hitting a pedestrian with 50 km/h is exponentially more dangerous than hitting them with 30 km/h. It's very clearly proven that having physically separted bike lines prevents deaths. It's very clearly proven that other measure like speed bumps, one-way streets, smart traffic routing prevents deaths.
And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.
It's very clearly proven that murder is dangerous, yet people still commit it. You still have not explained how laws stop things from happening, as if by magic.
> And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.
This says more about you than it does me. Taking the most cynical view possible, at least a for profit company has a profit motive to keep me alive unlike a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat doesn't lose their salary if traffic deaths go up. In fact, if a problem gets worse, they often receive more funding to fix it. If a government road is dangerous, you cannot easily fire the government and switch to a competitor's road.
The success you mentioned in Helsinki wasn't a triumph of law; it was a triumph of engineering. The question is not whether we want safety, but which system—a state monopoly with no financial penalty for failure, or a private entity that faces financial ruin if it kills its customers—is more likely to engender it.
reply