"Public services are increasingly becoming more accessible with LLMs" How about that as the title?

They also have zero evidence that this is because of LLMs. They just got some data related to volume, did a really crappy analysis that wouldn't even stand up as an intro to stats course project, and declared their biased opinion as likely true.

Ah yes. Algebra. The subject all students love dearly. If only we could get students to love and appreciate calculus as much they love algebra!

I have a hard time even imagining an article that is more disconnected from the reality of teaching calculus to tiny humans.

You're just memorizing a nonsensical recipe. What are the constraints? Why do we do X rather than Y? How does a particular thing scale? etc.

All you're doing is fooling yourself into thinking that you've acquired some knowledge. When in reality you haven't even learned the basic mental model to reason about this stuff.

You've learned something when you have a mental model that makes correct predictions. Until then you've memorized it at best, and as with most memorized things it will decay exponentially and will be gone from your memory soon enough.

This just isn't true. The Wright Brothers solved fundamental problems in aviation that no one else did.

The three axis control mechanism is still what every plane uses today. They literally had to invent that notion. Adverse yaw is something that every single pilot learns about and handles.

They discovered the notion of stalling (literally they were the first to identify the notion and use the term) and the relationship between angle of attack and stalling. This is the sort of thing that will 100% kill you immediately when you fly, but if you know what to do it's part of routine training.

And that's just the start of it. You should read "What the Wright Brothers Did and Did Not Understand About Flight Mechanics—In Modern Terms" by Fred E.C. Culick

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-the-Wright-Brothe...

This has nothing to do with being American or not.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.13169

The "poisonous scientific literature" removal is on page 14. Look at the table. Removing academic pieces changes performance by on average 0.44%! You could sneeze and change the performance by that much. You could rerun with a different seed and change the performance by more than that. You could retrain on a different GPU that orders floating point operations differently and change performance by that much. etc. This is meaningless.

Also, the authors explain exactly why this happens! It's on that page even. The academic data hurts a little on datasets which aren't academic. It hurts on common sense reasoning like SocialIQA (Q: "Jordan wanted to tell Tracy a secret, so Jordan leaned towards Tracy. Why did Jordan do this?" A: "Make sure no one else could hear"). Shocking that you can't learn this from academic publications.

This is just substandard blog slop that give science a bad name.

The scary part is: "Dan Recht and Ben Reinhardt trained as scientists and now coach scientists. They do other work but don’t link to it here." As someone who has advised plenty of PhD students I can't find the words to express my disdain at that line and these jokers.

England is second to none.

Then there's the mass. I don't need that anymore. The mountains of boilerplate, etc.

I write little islands which need high judgement that are then connected by the obvious goo.

We can't. We built a system that creates a very small number of very expensive munitions and that can't be scaled up. We've been trying to scale up munitions production for years now with the Ukraine war. And it just isn't possible.

Not only does it take years to make any missile now. Our total capacity to make missiles is incredibly low. Like, we can make 600 Patriot missiles per year. We've expended twice that so far with Iran alone. We can make 100 THADD per year. We've expended 300 so far.

The US will run out of missiles way before Iran does. Iran could easily produce 2000 missiles per year and if it pushed it could make closer to 8000.

Iran will recover its missile stocks from the current war in a year. It will take the US until 2031 to do the same.

Sounds great! Have you tried this? Did you see what went wrong? Otherwise this is just the same nonsense as always.

The comments here always blow me away by how totally out of touch with the rest of the world many posters are. No, home delivery is not a luxury, it just works really poorly in your country.

India is going through a 15 minute or less delivery boom right now. It's gotten so popular that the government is asking companies to not promise 10 minutes because that would endanger drivers.

The standard is China is 30 minutes home delivery.

It has nothing to do with loopholes on anything. Just someone managed to convince you that what you've got is better than what exists out there already.

A family member has cancer and we treat chatgpt as part of the team (our doctor's words). I ingest everything into it, work with it to make a good report. Then at the next visit we review it.

This gives you the best of both worlds. You get peace of mind and the doctor explains why and how the agent was right or wrong.

Twice now we've caught consequential mistakes (wrong pain medication and incorrect notation of the exact mutation that he has). Which have made a difference to his quality of life and treatment path.

Most of what the doctors have said is in line with the agent but when there have been disagreements they've been very reasonable. Sometimes the doctors have gone with the agent's version sometimes they've explained why that's inappropriate.

Facebook once existed as "How is a company going to make money from undergrads stalking one another online?" but that company didn't make it big. It was only when it turned into an addictive harmful website that thrives by massively raising the suicide rate of kids, that's when they made it big!

AirBnb once existed as "Who's going to pay to sleep on an airbed on someone's floor?" but they didn't make a billion dollars doing that. It wasn't until it turned into a DYI hotel that displaces local resident, concentrates wealth, and makes housing unaffordable. That's when it made serious money.

So yes, nominally, each of these startups sounds good. But many of them turn into rent seeking, closed ecosystems, that prey on users.

> You must look at the world around you and see how it's actually done.

Correct. I wish PG would do that. Instead of telling this idealized fantasy.

The sad part is, this is going to be used to hurt workers everywhere! Come back to work for your own mental health.

They don't compare remote vs non-remote workers. They compare workers in job families that could be remote vs workers in job families that are unlikely to be remote. Their control group is nonsense, the pandemic affected people in different job families very differently.

The real effect is living alone or not.

Also, it conflates mental health utilization with mental health status. It makes it seem like not taking antidepressants means you aren't depressed. Maybe the actual lesson is that people in remote-capable jobs have better insurance and time to get antidepressants. And those that aren't, get to suffer with their bad mental health.

This paper says absolutely nothing about the impact of remote work on workers. Zero.

I can already on the ground see the effect of the Trump policies. So many tech jobs that would have been in the US are being lost. And companies are learning how to be effective with overseas teams.