When something suddenly starts getting good, the question is not, “How good is it?”, the valuable question to ask is, “How long will it improve?” One of the objections to my comment that 90% of my skills are worth $0 but 10% are worth 1000x is that ChatGPT (& friends) are still not that good at writing code. I read this objection as, “…and therefore my coding (or whatever) skills are still as valuable as they were and therefore I can ignore Large Language Models.” Here’s why I think that’s a mistake.
I think it's hard to tell what the growth rate will be because the conversation is confused by hype. And part of that confusion is people not being clear about whether they're talking about the present or future.
You can *bet* on the future, but it's hard to have valuable conversations about it, because it's just comparing opinions. In-depth articles are better written about the present.
I think it's hard to tell what the growth rate will be because the conversation is confused by hype. And part of that confusion is people not being clear about whether they're talking about the present or future.
You can *bet* on the future, but it's hard to have valuable conversations about it, because it's just comparing opinions. In-depth articles are better written about the present.
Reminds me of the disrupting innovation S-curve of growth mentioned in the Innovator's Dilemma.
I think of HERE Maps vs Google Maps and how the latter overtook the former over time.