Could you clarify what you mean by design questions? I do agree that GPT5 tends to have a better agentic dispatch style for math questions but I've found it has really struggled with data model design.
As a developer - ChatGPT doesn't hold a candle compared to claude for coding related tasks and under performs for arbitrary format document parsing[1]. It still has value and can handle a lot of tasks that would amaze someone in 2020 - but it is simply falling behind and spending much more doing so.
1. It actually under performs Claude, Gemini and even some of the Grok models for accuracy with our use case of parsing PDFs and other rather arbitrarily formatted files.
I think most people are aligned on AI being in a bubble right now with the disagreement being over which companies (if any) will weather the storm through the burst and come out profitable on the far side.
OpenAI, imo, is absolutely going to crash and burn - it has absolutely underwhelming revenue and model performance compared to others and has made astronomical expenditure commitments. It's very possible that a government bailout partially covers those debts but the chance of the company surviving the burst when it has dug such a deep hole seems slim to none.
I am genuinely surprised that generally fiscally conservative and grounded people like Jensen are still accepting any of that crash risk.
You are correct that caring is important - but it also isn't your responsibility at the end of the day. If you don't care you're doing it wrong - if you let it eat you up inside whenever anything goes wrong you're also doing it wrong.
Work-life balance is mostly talked about in terms of time commitments but there is also an emotional commitment you need to balance. It's unhealthy to be too far in either extreme and, especially folks that are naturally empathetic, should be more wary of falling into the trap of overinvesting in a workplace and suffering mentally for it.
> Try "I am unable to attend meeting without an agenda. Let me know when one has been posted." in your decline message.
If you have a good manager you can often CC them or quote them in your response as well "Sorry, I'm busy with project work and Sarah wants me to stay focused to hit our deadlines. If we're going to need to budget time outside of it I'll need a clear agenda to offer as a rationale to my stakeholders."
I think it really helps to sell this if you've got casual impromptu voice calls as a norm in the company. If it was really just a quick thing then throw up a hangout for us to chat - if it's worth scheduling a meeting for it's certainly worth actually putting together an agenda.
As an aside - my company recentlyish switched from google to ms for calendar management and (among many things MS is terrible at) the fact that agendas aren't immediately visible in meetings on your calendar is the absolute worst UX decision.
Yup - they touch on proxy relationships where you have a few trusted reporters to break the crowd into cohorts that you can mentally simplify but whenever you do this you need to accept that it won't be complete. You should expect and make room for occasional noise from the fifty people behind your one trusted reporter because the problem could always lie with the reporter themselves.
I wish LinkedIn was that good. In my eyes LinkedIn has become "Facebook but with resumes" - I accept that I should have a profile on there for resume visibility but there are so many features built into that site that just should not exist and so many genuinely valuable things around job seeking they could do that they're simply not.
It's an excellent example of a product that could be massively improved by just removing things - look back to early linkedIn days where their email notifications actually meant there was likely something relevant that you care about there. Now they've created a platform where the valuable is buried in piles of irrelevant slop.
I think it's more just a bizarre platform for us to gawk at. I'm not really certain why LinkedIn even has social features available if it's purporting to be a professional space and especially a professional space that is going to be your first impression for a new job prospect. Maybe having a loud profile is a positive to some sorts of recruiters but posting anything beside resume information on that site just seems like a guaranteed malus on future prospects. Even if you'd like to run a live blog on some project you're working on as a sort of portfolio - do it on a platform you have full control of in case you want to rescind it or modify it later.
There are a lot of valid business interactions which are basically people in certain niche asking questions or talking about things which are going on which are super relevant to other companies in that niche. These can be informative (most industry insiders who might be interested in your live blog aren't subscribed to it, but most of them have LinkedIn accounts) and even lead to actual collaboration, purchases or funding.
ChatGPT takes on $globalevent are not examples of that. But they seem to be more favoured by the LinkedIn algorithm because of rather than despite how generic they are and how artificial their engagement boosting is.
I agree. If you follow people that are really interesting to you and if you don’t just connect with anyone who tries to connect with you, your feed can be pretty good. Sometimes LinkedIn reminds me of the good old days when everyone had a Twitter account and people could discuss there their work and other related stuff without too much politics involved
You are looking through the eyes of an individual contributor, but it is not a social network for individuals and job search is a side effect. The main audience is marketing and sales services and executives, to advertise and network in their niche. The generic posts are equivalent to billboard ads, made by people literally paid to spend their day doing marketing (and so post generic things on LinkedIn). What might be confusing is there is also a huge wannabe/aspirational individual entrepreneurs and marketers crowd that are LARPing being successful on it, and as an individual you might only see this surface.
> Maybe having a loud profile is a positive to some sorts of recruiters but posting anything beside resume information on that site just seems like a guaranteed malus on future prospects.
At one of my past companies, I recall a recruiter disqualifying a candidate for a SWE role solely for having a "weird" headline banner image on their LinkedIn profile.
The "weird" image was a benign screenshot of a landscape backdrop of some Miyazaki film. No characters, no action sequences -- literally just trees, mountains, shit like that.
I think GP assumes that Myazaki's films have transcended the "anime" label. They certainly have with me, and with most mainstream film critics. But based on the LinkedIn reaction, and your comment, maybe not? That's interesting.
I think Miyazaki films are cool, but I seriously doubt most people who aren’t film buffs will really recognise them.
I think many if not most people will have negative associations when they think of adult anime enthusiasts, therefore most people with good social skills would not put anime on their LinkedIn.
I also probably wouldn’t want to hire someone who’s holding a gun in their LinkedIn photos (unless it was related to their work), even though I’m a hobbyist shooter myself. I think shooting is a cool hobby, but I understand that for many people it’s a weird enough hobby that it would be downright stupid to advertise it in an unrelated professional context.
The problem isn’t anime (or guns), it’s the poor judgement demonstrated by adding pointless question marks on what might otherwise be a good profile.
I think we agree with each other, but also that you missed my point: the "mistake", as it were, wasn't to do with social skills as much as assuming Miyazaki / Studio Ghibli had crossed into the mainstream, which... It seems isn't accurate.
Though, I don't know: would putting any film background on a LinkedIn profile read as "unprofessional"? (I don't know; I've never used LinkedIn in any capacity.)
Exactly this, it’s just another outgrowth of the attention economy, and I assume there is a payoff for many people or they would not be engaged with the platform. I assume part of that is purely for the attention, but part of it must be remunerative from a professional standpoint as well. The lines get blurry fast in influencer spaces. What is work, what is personal, what is even real, and how much does any of that matter as long as you are getting attention?
It's really just people being terminally online, but with a thin veneer of professional growth.
English speakers don't experience this, but in my language LinkedIn-speak has so many calques from English that, in order to understand it, I often have to translate words one by one to English and then the result back to my language.
> I'm not really certain why LinkedIn even has social features available if it's purporting to be a professional space
As an employee, you do not get rich operating and maintaining a glorified contacts manager.
Don’t get me wrong, as a founder/shareholder of a globally-used Rolodex you can make decent money. But as an employee, you don’t get much benefit besides market rate salary for the work you do.
Which means the employees there have an incentive to game the system. If the “reward function” set by leadership is increased time spent on the platform (also known as “engagement”), then you will maximize that metric to advance your own career.
Similarly, until the end of ZIRP, “engagement” happened to be the currency of the technology industry, so even the executives and leaders of the company had an incentive to encourage maximization of this metric by their employees.
LinkedIn could absolutely detect the typical slop we associate with this platform (nowadays even easier with LLMs - turns out they work both ways). They could discourage low-effort posting by rate-limiting or charging for them. Social media companies absolutely can detect and discourage bad behaviour (despite their claims to the contrary), it’s just that for a long while there was no reason to, and even now there isn’t because their behavior during ZIRP cemented their monopoly.
There were several generalizations in that statement that align with my similar fears to the OP. Most firmware should minimize the charge cycling, most batteries should be stable at constant charge... most isn't great for something that I want to sit in the corner undisturbed for a decade just chugging along - I have a few old desktops I use whenever I need a stand alone server or to host something web-live for a while. They'll eventually have hardware failures, but I have a lot more confidence that when they fail it won't be dramatic or destructive - ditto with old laptops, the serviceability expectations are much higher than phones so I have yet to meet a laptop I can't pop open and just pull the battery out of to run on AC alone - in the case of a power failure the UPS can't cover I'd rather the machine just power off rather than needing to deal with the possibility of dramatic failure.
I think if you're considering re-harvesting old devices to use for hosting and get far enough down your list to get to phones then you've likely got enough constant maintenance costs in overseeing things that the additional worry of fire risk just isn't worth it.
My UPS is a single device that I have accepted the cost of maintaining and require for my daily use computer - it has to be regularly replaced because the nature of UPSes is a very limited and usually well documented shelf-life.
A fire risk? I think it'd be exceptionally rare for that kind of thing to lead to a fire instead of just dead parts (assuming no overtemperature protections). Even people with the 600 w melting GPU cables don't end up with an actual fire.
Batteries, however, are absolute hellfire when they go wrong (because of chemistry - not just the temperature).
reply