There are clock neurons, ADC neurons that transform analog intensity of signal into counts of digital spikes, there are neurons that integrate signals over time, that synchronizes together etc etc. Transformer models have none of this.
In part because model performance is benchmarked using tests that favor giving partly correct answers as opposed to refusing to answer. If you make a model that doesn't go for part marks, your model will do poorly on all the benchmarks and no one will be interested in it.
I think the problem is that models are just not that good yet. At least for my usage at work, the CLI tools are the fastest way to get something useful, but if you can't describe basically exactly what you want, you get garbage.
They are good enough, but people aren't exploring other UIs enough. The TUI tools (which I think you're referring to, Codex, Claude Code et al) are a good start, but they feel like a prototype compared to a completely different UI. You'd still describe what you want, but not imperative in a chat window, but some other manner.
On the other hand, I've found that agentic tools are basically useless if they have to ask for every single thing. I think it makes the most sense to just sandbox the agentic environment completely (including disallowing remote access from within build tools, pulling dependencies from a controlled repository only). If the agent needs to look up docs or code, it will have to do so from the code and docs that are in the project.
The entire value proposition of agentic AI is doing multiple steps, some of which involve tool use, between user interactions. If there’s a user interaction at every turn, you are essentially not doing agentic AI anymore.
They are worse than people: LLM combine toddler level critical thinking with intern level technical skills, and read much much faster than any person can.
That analysis only makes sense if companies value AI tools as much as equivalent human productivity. Hypothetically say you have a company with 100 junior developers. An AI service comes around that doubles the productivity of your junior developers, so you can keep only 50 of them. Would the company pay 5M dollars a year forever for that service?
In my experience, the answer is a resounding no. They’ll nickel and dime some kind of per-seat licensing on a monthly basis that costs less than 100 USD or whatever. So for every 100$ in salary you can automate away, you might get 2$ in subscription payments if you are lucky, at current rates.
That’s sanctions evasion and those companies will be very wary in providing services to any close family of a sanctioned person. My guess is that these people’s SOs, children and their SOs are similarly banned, and that siblings, parents and “close associates” have to provide way more documentation when opening bank accounts than you and I.
In it he specifically mentions that family cannot buy stuff for you because that is a crime if they are in the US or are US nationals, and that your direct family is banned from entering the US (p 4). He does not specifically state whether his family are sanctioned or not but he says that is a risk when he talks in general terms on page 7 about the impacts of the sanctions regime for other judges. Perhaps he is simply not married himself.
Either way, for some reason the news coverage didn’t include these parts of the letter, maybe they didn’t read the whole thing.
It's not uncommon though for eg departments to have common equipment that they negotiate together.
reply