I’d like to add that it’s often more about ownership and control than it is about money. I know people who could be earning 8 figures TC working for other people but earn 7 figures instead just because they want control over their lives and not to have to answer to people they don’t respect all the time.
💯 just work and make a little progress every day. You’ll be depressed about how little you get done in a week but you’ll be amazed at what can get done in a year. Don’t kill yourself, take a look in the mirror every few weeks and take stock and see if this is actually what you want to be doing.
Everything else is luck & talent, which you have almost no control over (yet!).
A lot of advice seems to be like diet advice, in the end if you do some exercise and keep it up it’s probably the right answer. Don’t optimize too early.
I usually add context free grammar to make sure it always outputs valid JSON. Here’s the json.gbnf I use.
root ::= object
value ::= object | array | string | number | ("true" | "false" | "null") ws
object ::=
"{" ws (
string ":" ws value
("," ws string ":" ws value)*
)? "}" ws
array ::=
"[" ws (
value
("," ws value)*
)? "]" ws
string ::=
"\"" (
[^"\\] |
"\\" (["\\/bfnrt] | "u" [0-9a-fA-F] [0-9a-fA-F] [0-9a-fA-F] [0-9a-fA-F]) # escapes
)* "\"" ws
number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]*)) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [0-9]+)? ws
# Optional space: by convention, applied in this grammar after literal chars when allowed
ws ::= ([ \t\n] ws)?
Altman’s Razor looking real good rn
I think the actual story is going to be a lot more boring and stupid than we think. It always is. I call it Altman’s Razor.
My guess is that on devday he over promised on two fronts
He probably told the board a few lies and about how much they were going to commercialise and opted to ‘ask for forgiveness rather than permission’. When they found out they went at him hard and did not forgive him.
I think it’s stupid because they should have resolved this via negotiation and threats, not by firing one of tech’s most successful dealmakers 🤣
I disagree. I think narrow models are the previous ML generation. This generation is defined by its generalisability, AGI is, after all, just a machine that can have a solution to any problem that can be solved by computers. This is what we are competing with. So if you want to compete, and I think it’s a good thing for the human race if we do compete, then you need to compete on the same level of abstraction.
If you want narrow AI then we already have all the state of the art tools that can do this, just be prepared to know linear algebra inside-out.
I do agree in the sense that if you want to bring real value you need to be practical, but you need to keep your eyes on the prize in the long run.
Weekend of the long knives ✅