In the growing sea of "AI for X" solutions, how does your product differentiate itself from others? E.g. what's the benefit of using Fynk document analysis vs.
let's say vanilla GPT?
Good question, here is what makes the project both technically more challenging and much more impactful in comparison to your typical "AI for X" startup:
1) We enable businesses to create a repository that in the back powers an individual ("per account") vector DB. This is the only way that allows the real-world use (i.e. in business) of up-to-date data (as opposed to pre-trained or proprietary LLM models) while at the same time effectively preventing data "spillovers" to other users and safeguarding data overall.
2) In contrast to the tons "generative" AI startups you see, our approach evolves around leveraging LLMs capability of interpreting context even when it has some human flaws. We then transpose the context in a standardized, structured data set, effectively making human-written content usable on a big scale. We extract metadata, detect clauses and find potential flwas in contracts. This is important because while LLMs can solve a part of this challenge in the short term when the context window is small, but it reaches its limit with very datasets, when they are unstructured.
3) On a non-AI note: We have created the first true end-to-end system aimed at non-enterprise, non-tech businesses that covers the entire process from import/creation of a document until it is securely signed and stored. This is what we believe the only viable foundation if we really want to convince people to abandon their 40 year old MS Word driven workflows. Having AI features neatly integrated in our workflows effectively allows our customers to benefit from the possibilities LLMs offer.
Interesting. He concretizes unforeseen consequences of screwing with the global ecosystem. I'm not sure that it's useful, though. Reality is frightening enough.
I've lived through a few situations where I did something stupid, and surprising stuff happened. Too quickly to do anything about, but slowly enough to appreciate how bad it was going to be. My first faceplant on a snowboard, for example. So anyway, regarding global climate change, the last 30 years has been like that. And surprises just keep coming.
Yes, I'm also looking forward to what the crypto engineering community has to say about this algo after it has been peer-reviewed more often. If it holds the promises then it will would be VERY huge.
Very interesting article. I mostly agree with the idea of social fragmentation. I think it is no coincidence that we like to call ourselves "individuals". Maybe the thought reflects our current zeitgeist but it seems almost natural (nowadays) for humans to emphasize our differences / our individualism. However, it seems very interesting, that as much as we like to differentiate ourselves we also tend to some kind of collectivism (e.g. trending sports, technology (iPhone/Android), etc.), even working for the same corporations (Google/Facebook/Apple...) which also appears contrary to the article. It may be true that the speed of change is accelerating but I can't agree with the idea that we already reached a fully fragmented society (yet) which is here to stay.
Another interesting part was the analogy to Ford's vertical integration. The trend definitely went from fully integrated mega corps to fragmented networks of corporations. The car industry is a perfect example. It would be exciting to know if PG thought about Tesla/SpaceX and it's current move towards a higher level of integration (producing more and more parts by themselves) in order to control the quality of their products. It may be sign that we are on the edge or maximum of fragmentation and there are trends emerging which pull us back into consolidation (maybe in another form than it used to).
I've been using this since the very early alpha status. It's a really nice storage solution with a very sophisticated technology too.
For anyone curious about the technology behind here is an early tech talk from one of the founders. It may be a little bit outdated now but still interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xKZ4KGkQY8
Since pebble started shipping and already got nice coverage and feedback from the community it sounds reasonable that apple might work on it's "i" equivalent.
Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011.
Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012.
From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.
I enjoy the fact that my current watch is ambient light powered, syncs with atomic clocks each night via radio... and therefore never needs a battery or charging, and is so damn accurate that I can glance at my watch when some event happens on my NTP sync'd server and the entry in the log file is precisely when the time on my watch said it would be.
Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.
> Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.
This is my biggest complaint whenever there's a patent discussion on HN (or anywhere else) by laypersons. The power sources are highly relevant to the patent; Every single claim in the patent is important. Otherwise, someone back at the beginning of patent-time could have simply patented "thing which you wrap around your wrist" and owned the patent to watches, bracelets, and handcuffs. As well, there could exist pre-existing patents for a straight stick, a piece of string, and a hook; But putting them all together to make a fishing rod would be an innovation that you could patent.
Thanks for the explanation, but the watches in your examples use very little juice. Apple's concept device has a large touchscreen and a persistent network connection with other iDevices. That uses a lot more power, that's why I was surprised to read that they're trying to run it off ambient light and kinetic energy -- I would've thought it wouldn't be worth it.
The patent mentions using multiple power acquisition methods to simply extend the life of the battery.
The patent also mentions many power savings features, basically putting the device into life-saving mode most of the time and only waking to perform a task or notify you of something.
If that's the case, then low power use when off is the priority for them, and if they are able to use drips of power from multiple sources to partially power that stand-by, then the battery only really gets used when you put the screen on... meaning that the device's standby time can be legitimately advertised as being some very long period of time.
> Since Bluetooth® v4.0 uses low-power near field communication technology, your function-packed G-SHOCK is able deliver to approximately two years of operation on a single coin type battery. This makes the watch's advanced functions practical for everyday use. Approximate battery life when communication function are used for 12 hours a day (tentative value).
2 years!
The iWatch (or whatever it's called) really is only going to drain the battery when that screen is on and in use.
Interesting. Assuming the device has only Bluetooth 4.0 and not 2.1 or WiFi, then the only iDevices that would be compatible are the iPhone 4S and later, iPod touch 5th gen, iPad 4, and iPad mini.
Given the limited number of compatible iDevices, it might be prudent for Apple to hold out launching this snap bracelet device, at least until they launch the next generation of iPhones and iPod touches.
Considering this patent was filed in mid-2011 and is almost certainly claiming an earlier invention date, I think you may have your order of events backwards.
The company behind Pebble has been working on smartwatches for a lot longer than Pebble - well before 2011. There was even a launched product - inPulse - before Pebble.
