It's why eating at your own restaurant is cheaper, but still not free.

I noticed the problem when I realized I couldn't make music in a specific mood or genre. Sometimes I'd finish my song and think "oh wow, a happy rock song" or "a sad edm song" or whatever but it was always just random chance where I ended up. With music theory knowledge I could always add more instruments or notes that could exist in that place but with 0 direction, whatever I made was always listenable but never more than that.

Ideas are mediocre. Plans are arbitrary. Research is untrustworthy. But telling it "generate me 100 ideas for X" feels really productive.

I think a version of me with no access AI will not just stay competitive, but even outcompete the version of me with unlimited access to AI.

The problem arrises when Bob encounters a problem too complex or unique for agents to solve.

To me, it seems a bit like the difference between learning how to cook versus buying microwave dinners. Sure, a good microwave dinner can taste really good, and it will be a lot better than what a beginning cook will make. But imagine aspiring cooks just buying premade meals because "those aren't going anywhere". Over the span of years, eventually a real cook will be able to make way better meals than anything you can buy at a grocery store.

The market will always value the exact things LLMs can not do, because if an LLM can do something, there is no reason to hire a person for that.

Once they have to solve a novel problem that was not already solved for all intentes and purposes, Alice will be able to apply her skillset to that, whereas Bob will just run into a wall when the LLM starts producing garbage.

It seems to me that "high-skill human" > "LLM" > "low-skill human", the trap is that people with low levels of skills will see a fast improvement of their output, at the hidden cost of that slow build-up of skills that has a way higher ceiling.

This means that until you reach that threshold, it feels like you're not making progress, cause every video just gets the same result (no views). Even if below the surface, you're slowly inching closer to that moment where your videos will actually be watched.

"Should I add oregano to brown beans or would that not taste good?"

"Great instinct! Based on your interests in building new apps and learning new languages, you are someone who enjoys discovering new things, and it makes sense that you'd want to experiment with new flavor profiles as well. Your combination of oregano and brown beans is a real fusion of Italian and Mexican food, skillfully synthesizing these two cultures.

Here's a list of 5 random unrelated spices you can also add to brown beans:

Also, if you want to, I can create a list of other recipes that incorporate these oregano. Just say the words "I am hungry" and I will get right back to it!"

Also, random side note, I hate ChatGPT asking me to "say the word" or "repeat the sentence". Just ask me if I want it and then I say yes or no, I am not going to repeat "go oregano!" like some sort of magic keyphrase to unlock a list of recipes.

Now we are in a weird situation where current flows from positive to negative, but electrons flow from negative to positive. It would be a lot more logical if the direction of the electrons was the direction of the current, but the name was arbitrarily decided before we knew what electrons were.

"People say [thing] is bad, but completely different people 50 years ago said [other thing] was bad" is not really an argument

Geronimus Polynomials -> Aenictus Raptor

You need to pick something that is only linked to in its "parent" article. So for example Aenictus Raptor is only really linked to on the Aenictus (genus) page, which is almost only linked to by the Ants page.

Don't do anything related to countries, because almost every article lists a country. So it's easy to traverse between them.