Sounds like polyphasic sleeping might re-emerge as the lifestyle solution. Instead of waiting for agents to complete, you should sleep on the response so when you arise you have the optimized prompt ready to go and a reset on your energy to prevent the burnout.
Amusingly this is an almost-exact description of how I work on my current project, sharc. I'm porting Arc to Common Lisp, and implementing as many HN features as I can. I've been documenting as I go with handoffs: https://github.com/shawwn/sharc/tree/main/docs/agents/handof... (Also thanks partly to dang, who is kind enough to find time to answer an email here and there about their current Arc stack.)
At one point I was working so hard that Claude actually suggested, all on its own, that I should get some sleep.
I dont see it as a contradiction. Apple knows its core competencies and has the cash to back to any initiative worth pursuing through acquisition and/or hiring. Cook was a savant at vertically integrating supply the supply chain and horizontally integrating the entire ecosystem. This led to multiple innovations where Apple is the de facto standard for quality.
The silicon behind Apple devices were worth owning and controlling but beyond that he may not have seen how Apples goes 0->1 for AI hence the idea to partner with other leaders. Apple did this for the mobile Web Browser so why not for AI as well. Let others subsidize those capabilities and make consumers/end users prefer Apple devices where it can actually shine.
Let Apple fast follow while others subsidize the R&D and validate the demand. That's what has allowed Apple to always end up on top.
Congrats on the launch. Few pieces of feedback that are similar in nature to what has already been shared but unique in terms of solutions.
1) The chat interface as shared in the video is a prime starting point to capture intent but anchors viewers to what Spine is all about. Try a show-tell-show approach where you can demonstrate (ideally above the fold) a compelling output, credits used and agents leverages, and THEN the simple prompt used to get it all started. Let's be real: the chat interface is not the a-ha moment. It's what you get out of it, the orchestration that happens behind the scenes, and finally the familiar chat interface that kicks it all off.
2) Who is the target persona for this? The benchmark accolade is great for the technical audience but they may not care about doing everything in the browser. The non-technical audience may like the browser but prefers examples of other companies and use cases are make the technical more accessible. The board concept helps the abstraction layer of understanding what is produced by the agents but the missing piece is memorializing the decision-making where human in the loop needs something to grasp & share.
1) Agreed on the show-tell-show framing: Chat is a natural starting point for people frustrated with linear interfaces, but you're right that the a-ha is the orchestration and outputs. We'll keep this in mind as we build out our gallery and demos going forward.
2) Right now our primary users are knowledge workers and researchers who need to do complex, multi-step work. The benchmarks help establish credibility, but we're building out more use case demos and a gallery to make it tangible for a broader audience. On the human-in-the-loop point, the agents do pause and come back to the user, and there is scope for iterations as well, but we haven't highlighted this well enough. We'll do a better job of showing that going forward.
OpenAI isn't publicly listed so it's hard to tell how this affects them from a "share price" concept. However for a company that's not public and only has capital from financing rounds and revenue, this gives OpenAI a lot more flexibility for the future and hedges risk while maximizing upside.
Yes. We don't have a sku with OpenAI but we may soon have one and they will be competing with others already in the pipeline. Recall the recent AMD acquisition of ZT Systems' engineering wing and now manufacturing by Sanmina.
The high concentration of tech companies that are spending on AI are also the ones controlling the narrative including the funding, success criteria, and communication. We are more likely to see minor corrections that effect individual companies but don't impact the market enough overall.
Tell that to their actual customers. At some point, State Farm or Eli Lilly is going to say "hey, we spent $1B on AI and fired 10,000 people. Where's all that efficiency you promised?"
That first sentence sounds so like 2008-land. House of cards is a house of cards. If 1 + 1 = 2, the market will discover it. The 1 + 1 = 3 narrative can only be controlled for so long.
It's less of an illusion but more that the reality is separating into two, one which we live and breathe as day-to-day working class/consumers and another that caters to the market makers of government & private sector.
This seems like an opportunity for more high rise mixed use buildings that do not have essential functions on the bottom floors. The older SFH's were probably most effected and newer SFH's despite stricter building codes are not resistant to this extreme weather patterns long term. The government needs to incentivize development that benefits economies of scale and disincentivize "disposable"/"perishable" development.
God forbid someone learns business and has produced multiple successful businesses in some of the most forward looking, technical fields. That does not immediately disqualify their ability to know technical topics and if even may signal quite the opposite. This level of elitism often among the HN crowd creates an echo chamber that stifles innovation since it arbitrarily discriminates the dissemination & mixing of ideas that aren't fully "technical". These guys understand the concepts and can communicate with each other with that shared understanding and constructs. It's wild but that's how the top people within the field may chat, simply, efficient, and pointedly.
