Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | elzbardico's comments login

Jony Ive is a great designer, but not a great product designer. He needs a strong product visionary like Jobs behind him, something the Sam Altman is not. I call it a flop.

This all feels like a charade designed to justify ever-higher valuations. Jony Ive likely gets insanely wealthy, even more than he did at Apple, just for lending his name. OpenAI gets a wave of “free” press, with headlines touting how they’ve brought the world’s greatest designer on board. And by the time it’s clear that none of it led to anything meaningful, a few years have passed, and the company is bigger than ever.

I don't know, most recent pics of Zuckerberg has him wearing a hideous pair of Buddy Holly "smart glasses". That's probably what this thing will end up being. Big tech seems hell bent on making these glasses a thing.

Agree 100% - seems like they made Jony an offer that no one could refuse.

I also feel like Humane would've kept going if they really thought there was something there, and the fact they killed it makes me think they probably explored the idea space didn't find any easy wins.

Is Jony really going to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat when good founders couldn't find any?

Maybe, but I'd bet against it.


Even the iPod would've flopped without Apple blanketing the world with ads, making it Windows-compatible and setting up deals with record labels to buy music for a buck a pop. I'm not sure what chance Humane would have had even in the best of circumstances, they had no ecosystem or manufacturing advantage and were completely dependent on third parties to provide the "brain" of the interface.

Anyone thinking there are no true believers betting on "Yes" should pay more attention to Modern American Protestantism.

Please Jesus, spare us the bullshit from marketers!

I use LLMs a lot, and call me arrogant, but every time I see a developer saying that LLMs will substitute them, I think they are probably shitty developers.

If it automates 1/5th of your work, then what's unreasonable about thinking that your team could be 4 developers instead of 5?

Because I've never seen a time saver in software development not being used to write even more software than what should be allowed by the time saving itself.

So, yes, it could happen, I foresee a steep road ahead for junior developers, but if history can serve as a guide, LLMs coding will more likely lead to MORE CODE, not LESS CODERS in general.


If software costs 80% as much to write, what's unreasonable about thinking that more businesses would integrate more of it, hiring more developers?

I think both will happen. I was merely demonstrating that just because an AI can't replace the entirety of your work, doesn't mean it won't make you redundant.

Bingo. This additional throughput could be used to create more polished software. What happens in a free market; would your competitor fall behind or will they try to match your polish?

This just feels like another form of the mythical man month argument.

No. the scope will just increase to occupy the space left by LLMs. We will never be allowed to retire.

Plenty of unconquered peaks and routes across the world.

The years made me realize that too, but there's also plenty of stupid people in upper-classes. And usually, contrary to the first ones, I can't escape having to deal with those.

That's true.

And the funny thing is that for all that money they are usually terribly badly dressed. Thousand dollar outfits that make you look like a clown.

Lots of defects in speakers are actually serviceable for a reasonable cost. For high-end speakers, I think it is worth trying.

AI can't architect. AI can simulate architecting. A lot of times AI can't even code.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: