Comment by dangus

Comment by dangus 2 days ago

20 replies

View on Hacker News

> It won't write your emails, but it can be trained to play a stripped down version of 20 Questions, and is sometimes able to maintain the illusion of having simple but terse conversations with a distinct personality.

You can buy a kid’s tiger electronics style toy that plays 20 questions.

It’s not like this LLM is bastion of glorious efficiency, it’s just stripped down to fit on the hardware.

Slack/Teams handles company-wide video calls and can render anything a web browser can, and they run an entire App Store of apps, all from a cross-platform application.

Including Jira in the conversation doesn’t even make logical sense. It’s not a desktop application that consumes memory. Jira has such a wide scope that the word “Jira” doesn’t even describe a single product.

andrepd 2 days ago

My Pentium 3 in 2005 could do chat and video calls and play chess and send silly emotes. There is no conceivable user-facing reason why in 20 years the same functionality takes 30× as many resources, only developer-facing reasons. But those are not valid reasons for a professional. If a bridge engineer claims he now needs 30× as much concrete to build the same bridge as he did 20 years ago, and the reason is his/her own conveinence, that would not fly.

Reply View 8 replies
  • ben_w 2 days ago

    > If a bridge engineer claims he now needs 30× as much concrete to build the same bridge as he did 20 years ago, and the reason is his/her own conveinence, that would not fly.

    By itself, I would agree.

    However, in this metaphor, concrete got 15x cheaper in the same timeframe. Not enough to fully compensate for the difference, but enough that a whole generation are now used to much larger edifices.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • kiicia 2 days ago

      But it only shows how wasteful your new bridge is. Concrete being cheaper does not mean you somehow need to use more of it.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • andrepd 2 days ago

      So it means you could save your client 93% of their money in concrete, but you choose to make it 2× more expensive! That only makes my metaphor stronger ahaha.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • ben_w 2 days ago

        You could save 93% of the money in concrete, at the cost of ???* in the more-expensive-than-ever time of the engineer themselves who now dominates the sticker price.

        (At this point the analogy breaks down because who pays for the software being slower is the users' time, not the taxes paid by a government buying a bridge from a civil engineer…)

        * I don't actually buy the argument that the last decade or so of layers of "abstraction" save us developers any time at all, rather I think they're now several layers deep of nested inner platforms that each make things more complicated, but that's a separate entire thread, and blog post: https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2024/04/07-21.31.19.html

        Reply View 0 replies
      • beagle3 2 days ago

        But also, there is more traffic on the bridge.

        The word processors of 30 years ago often had limits like “50k chapters” and required “master documents” for anything larger. Lotus 123 had much fewer columns or rows than modern excel.

        Not an excuse, of course, but the older tools are not usable anymore if you have modern expectations.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • dangus 2 days ago

    I have great doubts that you were doing simultaneous screen sharing from multiple participants with group annotation plus HD video in your group calls, all while supporting chatting that allowed you to upload and view multiple animated gifs, videos, rich formatted text, reactions, slash command and application automation integrations, all simultaneously on your Pentium 3.

    I would be interested to know the name of the program that did all that within the same app during that time period.

    For some reason Slack gets criticism for being “bloated” when it basically does anything you could possibly imagine and is essentially a business communication application platform. Nobody can actually name a specific application that does everything Slack does with better efficiency.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • andrepd 2 days ago

      You're grasping at anything to justify the unjustifiable. Not only did I do most (not all, obviously) of those things in my Pentium 3, including video and voice chat, screenshare, and silly animated gifs and rich text formatting, but also: that's beside the point. Let's compare like with like then; how much memory does it take to have a group chat with a few people and do a voice/video in MSN messenger or the original Skype, and how much does Slack or Teams take? What about UI stutter? Load time? There's absolutely no justification for a worse user experience in a 2025 computer that would be a borderline supercomputer in 2005.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • [removed] 19 hours ago
        [deleted]
        Reply View 0 replies
ben_w 2 days ago

> Slack/Teams handles company-wide video calls and can render anything a web browser can, and they run an entire App Store of apps, all from a cross-platform application.

The 4th Gen iPod touch had 256 meg of RAM and also did those things, with video calling via FaceTime (and probably others, but I don't care). Well, except "cross platform", what with it being the platform.

Reply View 7 replies
  • dangus 2 days ago

    Group FaceTime calls didn’t exist at the time. That wasn’t added until 2018 and required iOS 12.

    Remember that Slack does simultaneous multiple participants screen sharing plus annotations plus HD video feeds from all participants plus the entirety of the rest of the app continues to function as if you weren’t on a call at all simultaneously.

    It’s an extremely powerful application when you really step back and think about it. It just looks like “text” and boring business software.

    Reply View 6 replies
    • ben_w 2 days ago

      > Group FaceTime calls didn’t exist at the time. That wasn’t added until 2018 and required iOS 12.

      And CU-SeeMe did that in the early 90s with even worse hardware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CU-Schools.GIF

      Even more broadly, group calls were sufficiently widely implemented to get themselves standardised 29 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.323

      > It’s an extremely powerful application when you really step back and think about it. It just looks like “text” and boring business software.

      The *entire operating system of the phone* is more powerful, and ran on less.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • dangus 20 hours ago

        Why don’t you just go ahead and tell me what specs you think Slack should run on and link me to an example program that has 100% feature parity that stays within those specs?

        Showing me a black and white <10FPS group video call with no other accompanying software running simultaneously in the 90s is pointless.

        Showing me that someone thought of a protocol is pointless. Just look at the history of HDTV. We wouldn’t really describe HDTV as being available to consumers despite it existing in the early 1990s.

        I’d also like you to show me a laptop SKU sold in the last 10 years that is incapable of running Slack. If Slack is so inefficient you should be able to find me a computer that struggles with it.

        Finally, I’ll remind you that Slack for mobile is a different application that isn’t running in the same way as the desktop app and uses fewer resources. The latest version of it will run on very old phone hardware, going all the way back to the iPhone 8 (2GB RAM), and that’s assuming you even need the latest version for it to function.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • numpad0 13 hours ago

      The problem with that kind of feature/benefit based thinking is that it won't correlate with code or computational footprints well. That's like justifying price of cars with seatback materials. That's not where the costs are.

      Modern chat apps like Slack, Discord, Teams, etc. are extremely resource intense solely by being skinned Chrome showing overbloated HTMLs. That's it. Most of the "actual" engineering of it is outsourced and externalized to Google, NVIDIA/Intel/AMD, Microsoft/Apple, etc.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • fc417fc802 a day ago

      If these applications only hogged memory when under stress (outgoing screencap plus video, multiple streams incoming, display to 3+ monitors) you might have a point. But that's not the case so you don't.

      Meanwhile I can play back multiple 1080 videos on different monitors, run a high speed curl download, saturate my gigabit LAN with a bulk transfer, and run a brrfs scrub in the background all most likely without breaking 2 GB of RAM usage. MPV, VLC, and ffmpeg are all remarkably lightweight.

      The only daily application I run that consumes a noticable quantity of resources is my web browser.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • dangus 20 hours ago

        If you didn’t babysit your task manager would you know which program used more RAM or not?

        This argument is just so endless and tiring.

        Saturating my bandwidth or running a btrfs scrub isn’t accomplishing the business logic I need to do my job, that’s what my web browser is doing.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • fc417fc802 14 hours ago

          So is it the "business logic" or is it the multiple HD streams that are supposed to account for the resource consumption? You've changed your story. But do please explain how the "business logic" to handle the chat box, UI, and whatever else is supposed to justify the status quo.

          People making excuses for poorly designed software is what's tiring.

          Reply View 0 replies
messe 2 days ago

> can render anything a web browser can

That's a bug not a feature, and strongly coupled to the root cause for slack's bloat.

Reply View 2 replies
  • dangus 2 days ago

    One person’s “bloat” is another person’s “critical business feature.”

    The app ecosystem of Slack is largely responsible for its success. You can extend it to do almost anything you want.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • spopejoy 2 days ago

      > app ecosystem of Slack is largely responsible for its success.

      Is that true? Slack was one of the first private chats that was not painful to use, circa 2015. I personally hate the integrations and wish they'd just fix the bugs in their core product.

      Reply View 0 replies