Right, and they pay a lot of money for this data. I know someone who does this, and one prompt evaluation could go through multiple rounds and reviews that could end up generating $150+ in payouts, and that's just what the workers receive. But that's not quite what the article is talking about. Each of these companies do things a bit different.
Some use AI detection to be sure that you're not cheating. Others use AI detection to make sure you're doing your job. "This is terrible, bring it back to me when it's slop!"
The thing I'm working on right now with a partner is an idea we got with yet someone else who was working with us. He was working in the sort of role that nobody would think of. I would have never known the area even existed. We're working on finishing the MVP this week and we have multiple people per target industries that are asking to check it out.
The trouble with influencers, is that they have ready-made consumer audiences.
Everyone else should be looking at things that create inarguable value. If I'm charging $XX per hour and this thing saves me multiple hours per X time period, then it sells itself. Even if the thing isn't saving me money (costs as much as the time saved) - it still may be worth it because maybe faster delivery and less drudgery is worth the outlay. And it would probably cost more to hire someone to do that anyway.
So, I agree with the dude who told you to find users first. But maybe the advice should have been "find pain points that you can solve." Say you figure out a service that could save lawyers loads of time. Then rather than say "try out my app" you could say something like "let me join on as a free contributor for a while so that I can work with you to improve X process." Once you have proven it works and you get the buy-in, then sales should come easier. But I don't see how you can discover / develop these things without being embedded in X field.
Sure, being an essential part of the global supply chain for tech is important. It's also important to show support for Taiwan, to convince Japan, South Korea, etc from arming with nukes. That could set off a chain reaction in which everyone who is close says "f*ck it, I guess if everyone else is doing it..." The veneer of the US security umbrella folds and everyone suddenly feels they need to build (or retain) the bomb to protect themselves (like Ukraine failed to do in giving up theirs.) Now everyone needs MORE nukes because you have a LOT more targets.
NATO doesn't consider Ukraine as significant because they have vital tech they supply globally. Rather, NATO is concerned about an aggressive regional power that may have aims on more than just Ukraine.
Add half of Africa and some middle east. Ukraine with its top notch black earth is the literal 'breadbasket of Europe'. Hitler knew it and Stalin knew it very well when he forced starvation to death upon Ukrainian population to subjugate them.
> he forced starvation to death upon Ukrainian population to subjugate them
I don't mean to defend the Soviet regime here but in the interest of discussion: the "to subjugate them" aspect is still somewhat contested [0]. I'm not sure whether it would even class as genocide according to the UN's own criteria.
From my understanding: the famine was definitely man-made, the question is more about whether it was intentional.
In addition to the learning curve of the tooling, there's also the learning curve of the models. Each have a certain personality that you have to figure out so that you can catch the failure patterns right away.
This! I was around looking for alternative "currencies" before Bitcoin even existed. But they were flawed,because they (such as Libertycoin) were shady centralized systems. Each of them were shut down by the US government. Bitcoin would have been the answer, but I lost interest before it became a thing (or it was already a thing and I somehow never come across it, because I never saw it as an accepted option.) This would have appealed to my geek nature. But I think I would have still lost interest in it after finding that Bitcoin also wasn't the answer due to difficulty in spending it. I likely would have cashed out at like $5 per coin to buy a bunch of pizzas.
In addition to the poor code we spend time on, we get to lose even more time endlessly talking about it and working on ways around the issues. I swear I have spent as much time tinkering with these models and the tooling as it took for me to bring my first skills up to a level to get hired. For people who are asking me if "ChatGPT can build a web app," they're really asking if they can build this thing without learning anything. I have bad news for them...
My take on this... a small meeting among close people can have big payoffs. Much of the payoff is fast transfer due to total communication (body language, casual, back and forth) and then that loses it's power as the meeting gets less intimate. The unexpected face to face conversations and the overall environment are what makes in-office work well. Big meetings lose much of that power. Zoom meetings lose much more of that power. AI note taking sessions... might as well not even bother. Just send docs that of course nobody will read. This is just cargo-culting.
I have never been an officer, but the C-suite in the military is like "flag rank" which is above Colonel (Brigadier General.) Colonels are more like high management. But they likely won't be promoted, won't have an actual command, and rank means little more than the title.
If private industry were the military, most companies would be headed by O5 or O6; the scope of duties and responsibilities of an eg VP or CFO are actually quite comparable to a lt colonel or navy commander, CEOs are fairly like captains & colonels. These ranks are enough to head a large ship, air base, or training facility with hundreds or thousands under their command. Only extremely large companies (50k+ employees) have anything with a role comparable to admirals or generals.
