LLMs and image generators are cross pollinating human language and human visual information -- both really fuzzy mediums.

I think learning how to 'use this instrument' and 'finding the perfect brush stroke' are part of how they are supposed to work (at least in their current form). I also don't know that just because they are showing good outputs from the inputs that this is framing the narrative as one-and-done... I think the rest of the owl is kind in of implied.

Small, laid back, conversation focused, but the coverage is definitely more 'general.'

I personally find it really refreshing compared to something like reddit (or even here). It's small enough that the comments section don't feel like an artificial jostle for the fastest, most attention getting response -- and the community seems to maintain that culture well via both scale and rate of scaling.

I don't think I can grok the value in what you're saying without sitting down with a browser window on one side to research each reference in depth.

As another commenter suggested -- that's too many brain calories. Could you try a more direct brain injection?

(To be clear, I'm not being facetious -- this is a viable possibility)

As an example, in response to "very few have achieved anything like the Incas," I asked for something specific to establish a frame of reference, and you replied with something that can be summarized more or less as "very few have achieved something like the Incas."

As to your second point, this is remarkable. Nobody has disagreed. But it's not extraordinary. Not every culture has to be agrarian. Not every culture has to be written. Draft animals, arches, wheels. These are one way to solve specific projects problems. They aren't the only solution. The Incas, through remarkable ingenuity and effort, solved those problems differently. Again, remarkable but but extraordinary.

It feels to me like you've asked and been answered, and for myself at least, it sounds like you've sort of dug in and want to be found on this hill of Incan exceptionalism. I personally find their exceptionalism exceptional, as exceptional as the many other exceptions that have been discussed in the thread so far.

Can you be more specific?

I understand they were a vibrant, far reaching empire, but I'm not sure I understand how they were so exponentially further advanced than many other past civilizations, that have each has their share of remarkable 'how the hell did they do that's.'

Taken in sum, I find them all remarkable in their own ways -- but it also proves the earlier point, that human ingenuity has found ways to express itself innumerably across the eras.

Maybe there's a tone interpretation issue in the thread... 'How did the Incas do this' -- is that asking for the detailed specifics of their management culture and systems (mostly unknowable -- likely the subject of a many past and future academic careers), or is it a statement of incredulity. I think myself and most of the other commenters have interpreted the latter, whether that was your intention or not.

What I'm pointing out is that, if you've seen much of the developing world, or lived anywhere except the fully formed bubble of a 'modern developed society,' you will have had the opportunity to observe that 'life... (and by extension, civilization)... find a way.'

The Egyptian pharoahs ruled for over 3000 years. That number is unfathomable in the context of modern society. Yes they had a written language, but the vast majority of that empire very likely did not know how to read it.

The millions that lived through that era integrated, obeyed and functioned into that power structure for more than 1.5x the time since we all agreed on a numbering structure for 'years since some arbitrary point in the past.'

Christianity, and Hinduism, and Islam, and frankly every major religion spread, and brought most of humanity into their fold without most of its adherents being able to read. There wasn't a formal written bible until hundreds of years after the religion itself was formed. It passed through dozens of generations before being formalized.

All this is to say: I don't know how the Incas did it, in terms of the granular specifics of their culture and systems, but that they did it, somehow, and using methods quite normal for most of history, is far from implausible.

i stumbled on your post about eye tracking needs for a relative dealing with MS.

i have some previous experience working with the tobii 4c and the 5 using more off-the-shelf solutions, as well as the more 'true medical grade' side of the tech, and may have some recommendations and learnings to share.

i have temporarily added a way to contact me into the about section of my profile. once i hear from you, or in about a week, i'll clear that out.

drop a line if you're interesting in discussing.

If that's what you're saying, I guess I'd flag that the 'repercussion cost' for 9/11 is still very much open to debate, and there is significant data to point towards almost every step the US took as a reaction to 9/11 being problematic, ranging from who was targeted, what the collateral impact was, and whether it actually solved any of the underlying problems.

There's 'terrible' writing in a lot of high budget, usually mass-appeal market games.

I would argue that's true of any medium -- films, books, theater, even music.

It's less direct than it would be in a perfect world, but I can't fault anything they said.

In contrast, the employee who made the recording has recorded a company meeting while they were an employee of that company, and revealed it online. I know nothing else of this employee but already can see why Cloudflare, a company for whom security and privacy must be internal values if they are going to use them to define their external products, might not be a good fit for them.

I think it's good that LLMs becomes specialized tools that can go deep into their expertise, I just think 'a fact engine' -- if that's what Claude is aiming to be -- needs to have correctly rigid controls on what defines fact. From that POV, I think I agree with the 'over-censored' label for Claude earlier in the thread... The intention may not be censorship, but if the LLM is so gunshy about what is fact vs. not, it's going to have a really narrow (and therefore potentially unreliable) lens.