I'd bet a lot of people are trying to optimize their codebases for LLMs. I'd be interested to see some examples of your ASI-unlocking codebase in action!
If you're interested, I added my email to my profile 'about' section. I could try to screen record my next feature development on one of my side projects.
I'm also kind of interested to see how others use LLMs for coding. I can speak for myself having worked on both good and bad code-bases; my experience is that it works MUCH better on those 'good' codebases (by my definition).
I don't have the impression people care about the weight of phones. Premium phones have metal and glass cases, and in the non-premium market the thing that matters is price.
What matters to me is how comfortable it is to hold and use with one hand. Large and thin phones tend to be bad in that aspect.
It seems like agentic browsers will develop aa new set of core primitives (e.g. always ask for manual approval when spending money), and this flavor of security vulnerability will go away.
Web browsers didn't begin with the same levels of security they have now.
There is a very clear way it's an appealing idea (though that doesn't necessarily make it good): the vast majority of content on the web has no API other than the web page. It's not even all that uncommon to have to run Javascript to generate the right requests (say, to do various custom encodings).
I fully agree. I for one am excited about a future in which we can take on bigger challenges. With (good) LLMs, we won't need to spend as much time thinking about "how" to get things done, and can spend more time lucidly deciding "what" we want done.
If anything, with the right tooling LLMs should improve the quality of our thinking. For example, how much better would your thinking be if you could ask the LLM to reliably figure out all the 2nd and 3rd effects of your ideas, or to identify hidden assumptions.
I'm pretty sure the job offer requirement is still in effect, and will remain in effect, since the O is an employment-based visa. What made you think it had changed?
"USCIS now permits separate legal entities, such as corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs) owned by the beneficiary, to file O-1 petitions on their behalf. This change provides a significant advantage for entrepreneurs and self-employed professionals."
* By law, the US can only issue 140,000 employment-based green cards per year, and no more than 7% to one country. This means people from India or China can face a 100+ year backlog, even after they have proved they qualify for a green card. There's no cap on marriage-based green cards.
* Processing times for many green cards (i.e. for people who have already qualified, but just need the physical green card), are 12-24 months.
* USCIS still expects many applications to be sent by mail. Some applications (like O-1s, EB-1s) require hundreds of pages of evidence, and it all needs to be printed out on 8.5x11" paper, for USCIS to scan it in on B+W scanners. This means that there is no error checking (e.g. on fee amounts), and if you have made a mistake, you might not know about it for weeks. Also, it means your petition cannot include working hyperlinks, webpages, or videos - the USCIS officer judges the petition by scrolling through a 400+ page PDF.
* The 'standard' post-graduate work visa is the H-1B. It's entirely lottery-based, not merit-based, and typically there are 400,000+ people competing for 85,000 visas. Many qualified people are forced to leave the US each year because they didn't get selected in the lottery.
Hyperlinks are often banned in various kinds of petitions and applications. Mostly to ensure that the entire application is submitted at once and does not change afterwards. Then you can process the application in multiple passes (maybe first for the formal requirements and then for the actual content), confident that the conclusions from the earlier passes are still valid.
Wouldn't this person be put on a PIP and then fired if their performance didn't improve?
Even at companies with non-uniform salaries, it's difficult to down-level someone. Their morale will drop, the team's anxiety will go up, and (if they were genuinely bad for a long time), the team will wonder why they weren't fired.
It seems like it's worth taking some time to steel-man the AI argument, even if your CEO hasn't made it very well.
E.g. If you don't work on AI now, and AI models keep improving, how likely is it that a competitor who integrates AI well will eat your lunch? If it's >50%, it seems worth it to shift some focus to AI regardless of the series C round.
This approach looks to me like a classic mistake of assuming all your potential paying users both are and want to be (these are different things!) power users. Similarly it might be suffering from the problem of living on the cutting edge and assuming everyone else is too.
I like the post and what it goes over. I agree with huge swaths of it, especially the misuse of ai tools right now. I don't agree that anyone doing it that way (like the gmail team called out over and over here) is either stupid or naive. I don't agree every consumer tool should become an agent building playground. I don't agree building said playgrounds are easy (I think it's much much harder to design a good agent building version of a product than a good product). I don't agree consumers want everything they use to work this way. I also think it ignores the very real problem of ai bullshitting and the handcuffs that puts on people using it for mission critical things like paying the mortgage.
Ironically I think this post falls into its own trap of not thinking about the next step. Yeah a really good email agent product as demod sounds great in a world where nothing works this way yet. However, a world where every product I use has to be re-engineered from scratch, with various unknown and non-customizable (and enshittifying) LLMs under it, with various training and fine tuning, unknown access to data, and no interop is the wood-frame horseless carriage the author is mocking. That would be a terrible situation worse than the current one.
Rethinking for a world of ai agents, it would be better if products empowered consumer agents instead of tried to supplant them. In THAT world products stay simple and just expose a bunch of tools and patterns that each consumer's custom agents can effectively use. Making that work well for your own product is actually viable AND helpful AND doesn't force your users to change their behavior if they don't want to. Anything I, the consumer, do to handle or prompt my own agent pays off across my entire ecosystem and investment can be focused on the right things by the right people (ie gmail should make email tools not agent tools).
