And since I won with an age, company, and title that is literally me right now... Well, I'm not exactly sure what to do with it information but some internalization is in order.
Pokemon Go was pitched as Pokemon on your phone with AR to integrate into day to day life. There's no reason to expect anything but the Pokemon games I've played, now natively on my phone with AR integration.
What came out was a clone of Ingress with a skin and a shop. It lacked the full set of Pokemon, which all the assets for already exist. It lacked having a six-Pokemon team. It lacked trading, a core feature of Pokemon in every generation of games. Gyms weren't even gyms, they were some sort of checkpoint XP farm thing.
If it had been pitched as what it was, I may have enjoyed it more. Instead, I found myself vastly disappointed with what I was able to achieve playing it compared to Pokemon on my Nintendo DS or some other handheld console.
I don't think this was a politics-based decision. I feel misled and disillusioned.
It would seem to me that purchasing a piece of software as an AI company is just an outright admission that they could not generate an equivalent piece of software for a better price?
If it was cheaper to use their internal AI to create these tools, they would.
Not sure I follow - is the car the coding agent, and the developer the driver?
Agree with OP here, if AI coding tools are as intelligent and amazing as AI influencers and CEOs are saying, just prompt them to "Remake UV but faster & better".
> Agree with OP here, if AI coding tools are as intelligent and amazing as AI influencers and CEOs are saying, just prompt them to "Remake UV but faster & better".
If average dev is more intelligent and amazing than any coding model, just hire a team of average devs and “remake UV but faster & better”.
Average dev might be more intelligent, but likely neither will produce something of UV's quality. Either AI coding claims are way overblown and OpenAI can't easily remake UV, or OpenAI is buying the ecosystem & mindshare rather the code, probably to lock-in, enshittify, and try to squeeze a profit out of a so far money-losing business (AI not Astral, though true for both I guess).
> Just my own observation that the same pattern has occurred at least 3 times now:
> release a model; overhype it; provide max compute; sell it as the new baseline
> this attracts a new wave of users to show exponential growth & bring in the next round of VC funding (they only care about MAU going up, couldn’t care less about existing paying users)
> slowly degrade the model and reduce inference
> when users start complaining, initially ignore them entirely
then start gaslighting and make official statements denying any degradation
> then frame it as a tiny minority of users experiencing issues
then, when pressure grows, blame it on an “accidentally” misconfigured servers that “unintentionally” reduced quality (which coincidentally happened to save the company tonnes of $).
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Remote: Open to in-person, hybrid, and remote
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Typescript, React, Python, Retool. (Also worked in Ruby[BE], Kotlin[BE], React Native[FE])
Résumé/CV: https://daredoes.work | Github: https://github.com/daredoes | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/daredoes
Email: me <at> daredoes <dot> work
Hello! I'm a full-stack engineer with a big love for the HomeLab & Home Assistant communities (I try to support some FOSS stuff when I can!)
If you've read this far, I humbly ask you to read my LinkedIn recommendations, and if you do follow up with an email, rick-roll me. I could use the laugh.
I wouldn't wait on this. The post has been up for a long time and appears to only be collecting CVs. I applied early last year and never got a response, and many others report the same.
Hi randomsofr, this posting has been continually posted since we are hiring on a rolling basis, not just for a single position. We have made hires for this position over time and continue to have openings.
We mention in our post-submission message that we only reach out if there’s a match, to spare applicant inboxes from negative messages (though perhaps we could make this messaging clearer). This follows what some companies such as Anthropic do and some of the reasoning in this post https://pablofernandez.tech/2023/02/03/you-should-not-send-r...
But I know that different people have different opinions on this, and we might shift to sending notification emails after resume review. I appreciate the feedback and I’m sorry about your experience here.
