Why? I really enjoyed the book, over-colorized, probably written to be made into a movie. He never portrayed SBF in a good or bad light, but he showed the mess SBF and his companions made.
Lewis wrote about and gave plenty of interviews outside of the book about how incredibly inciteful SBF was... basically up until the moment of his arrest.
I got the impression of an "Elizabeth Holmes is wonderful" vibe from those interviews, showing how people perceived SBF. The overall image of SBF from the book is pretty bad, but it's never stated directly.
It seems like a simple fact is often overlooked: you can't just throw money at art and expect it to be good, no matter the form. Netflix tried it and ended up with a lot of weak stuff, Microsoft did the same with similar results. Most games these days are just copies or rehashes of others, not original, full of clichés or old-fashioned mechanics. Acquired studios tried to mash up different ideas, hoping it would stick, often with really bad results, like Redfall. It's like the E.T. game disaster, but forty years later and spanned across the whole company. Hardware is great, GamePass is great, but Microsoft can't produce games.
One thing money can do is enable polish - you might not be able to directly force the next great game, but you can make your games excellently coded and polished.
Polish and Microsoft is a funny pairing over the last few years. More and more things are coming apart at the seams as the vibe-coded duct tape is failing.
It isn't new behavior. I use each model to redact emails. Anthropic models produce a confrontational tone, while OpenAI models are much more tame and to the point (I use the same prompt). I noticed that a long time ago and prefer GPT for those tasks.
About one year ago, I created an LLM gateway with metrics, provider fallback and switching, tools support, injecting, etc. etc., and unique features like acting as an MCP tools client and server, all streamed, with low latency.
It was a simple project in terms of technical complexity. I didn't publish it as I counted several similar projects in the field.
Putting $7.3M into such a project would make sense only in the case of a precise growth plan with already declared customers and an promising sales funnel. There is no technical moat.
The calculus in “buy or build” has shifted for me over the last six months especially. If I can make an agent build it, I get the version that’s tailored for me.
> It was a simple project in terms of technical complexity.
That’s the thing, though. The version I build for myself sheds all the features that get in my way. I don’t share them either because they’re only useful for me.
Perhaps in the future big tech projects will be delivered with a common “core” and the expectation that agents fill in the use-specific stuff.
> The calculus in “buy or build” has shifted for me over the last six months especially. If I can make an agent build it, I get the version that’s tailored for me.
I feel like this is really going to change the software industry moving forwards. Historically it was tedious and time consuming to actually develop tailored dev tools which is why so many organizations relied on third party solutions. When nowadays you can easily half bake something in a few hours and get it working, tailored _specifically_ to your needs.
>When nowadays you can easily half bake something in a few hours and get it working, tailored _specifically_ to your needs.
The thing is this requires you are given liberty to actually do this yourself. Think of something like say LMS software. Every college in the country is using what either blackboard or canvas. Could they make some bespoke LMS that works great for physics 101 at State university? Absolutely. But they don't, because the course director for physics 101 does not care or have the time to muck around with LMS prototypes. They barely have time to learn how to use their paid for LMS for anything but hosting the slides and syllabus.
So on the one hand, yes, there is massive creative potential for people to roll their own tools. But this is not often met with the required time and liberty to then go on to roll their own tools. Buying off the shelf still serves the organizational need it ever did: defer the creating to "someone else" who has been anointed by marketshare as the thing to do already, so that if shit really hits the fan you can just say you did what anyone would have done in your position. Same function as management consultancy: insulating fallout from bad ideas from the people who could be fired for it and give them essentially an out where they won't get browbeaten over it.
I think our culture around work and responsibility and "free time" needs a revolution for the LLMs to take off as promised as this playdoh tool.
> Perhaps in the future big tech projects will be delivered with a common “core” and the expectation that agents fill in the use-specific stuff.
I suspect so, the headless / "api/cli only" tools like CRM are pretty big right now and I don't think we've seen the end of that trend, probably more like just beginning.
Models are getting better, but there's a negative change in terms of "productivity" per dollar. Yeah, I can throw 5 sub-agents at the problem, but the cost is getting significantly higher. And yes, I can crank out the solution much faster, but again, at some point that cost will be hard to justify. And it doesn't matter if the cost is subsidized by a provider, if it's paid by your company, or from your pocket. We are slowly reaching a point where the cost will be too high to justify the gains.
Windows is dying a death by a thousand small, user-unfriendly decisions. This is genuinely sad because the technology underlying Windows is actually very robust and flexible.
So, the partnership is maybe natural, but not prospective. Also, note how Linux is getting popular among gamers. Of course, it's way behind Windows, but the direction of the change is clear.
I'm convinced that Nvidia is not primarily targeting the consumer market and that the ultimate goal for its CPUs is the server space. The company invests effort where the money is, and consumer products account for only a fraction of its total revenue. Maintaining a presence in the consumer market seems more like a way to avoid a complete pivot than a strategic priority.
This idea sounds good at first, but if you look closer, it would just make workers, not experts who really understand. What we could do, and already do, is tweak the learned abstractions. In our field, it's easy to see: most of us first learned about computing abstractions, not how processors actually work, or started with Java, not assembler.
Plus, you can't teach math from top to bottom.
Producing a thing has always been cheap since personal computers existed. From mail-order software companies' times to SaaS times, producing a sellable MVP was an initial cost that is relatively small compared to the later cost of expansion and maintenance. Marketing and selling was and still is the hardest part.
Among the constructed languages that I have seen, I believe that Interlingua was the closest to how a language that could replace English as the international language should be.
I disagree with some grammatical choices made for Interlingua, but in any case it had a simple grammar and the vocabulary was well chosen among the words that are common to the greatest number of European languages. Thus I could read and understand Interlingua without knowing anything about it before that.
Interlingua has a vocabulary bias towards Romance languages, but that is due to the fact that Romance words, mostly coming from Latin or French, are also widespread in English, and also in other language groups like Germanic or Slavic, while much less Germanic or Slavic words are found in languages from other groups. Therefore when selecting the words that are found in most European languages, there are more Romance words than from the other groups.
reply