With this sort of advice from LLMs, I think there's a lot of selective recall that's easily overlooked -- where we gloss over all the bad, dead-end lines of advice we seek from the LLM oracle.

> As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit ... If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences, since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious ... By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself ... A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.

But his "6 rules" are brilliant too. I'll look into his other essays.

You're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend that "addiction is a public health issue, gambling addicts have high suicide rates, and many profit from others' addictions" are subjective.

Like, Reddit may know that Bazzly is selling fake comments, which violates Reddit's ToS. How many comments can they prove are tied to Bazzly? How much does an astro-turfed comment financially harm Reddit, and can they convince a jury of that?

Instead, most companies will aggressively shut down the bot networks, if they can identify them, and hope that the astro-turfers focus on other platforms, and/or make it more financially challenging to do it successfully on theirs.

It was a lot more fun than Discord, Slack, or any other dedicated chat client. With Sheets, we'd do fun little gags and bits in the spreadsheets. Everything ended up being really personalized and owned by us. Now we just send boring messages on WhatsApp. I miss the old ways.

The "Complete 72-Hour Raw CSV Dataset" CSV contains 13 records. That incomplete data is formatted incorrectly: rows 6 and 11 are missing payload_bytes, so their description shows in the wrong column.

The "How DeGoogled Are You" section is mostly a separate issue from the test described in the article, and it has no place being at the top. The article is about how Android phones are passively phoning home. For example, switching from Chrome to Brave won't reduce idle phone-home, as Android users can't uninstall Chrome, and the idle activity was not related to Chrome. The same goes for most of the other recommendations in that widget.

> The top is a three-way tie: Muse Spark 1.3 Max, Claude Opus 5, and Claude Fable 5.1 all reach 55.29% all-pass accuracy, a clear ~6-point step ahead of the next model. [Astra for Law reached 54.0%]

> Under partial-credit scoring, Claude Opus 5 reaches 90.58% weighted pass rate but 55.29% under strict all-pass grading, where every rubric check must pass. The gap shows models often get most of an answer right but fail on one or two required elements. [Astra for law reached 90.0%]

https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/legal_research

This is another 20,000 - 30,000 (the exact number isn't public yet) on top of that.

But as they do eventually explain, the LLM's task wasn't solely to solve this specific problem, it was to first identify an unsolved problem it could solve. That's potentially more impressive and difficult than solving the unremarkable cipher itself.

It continues modern trend of chow companies don't want consumers to truly own anything. Finance a car, pay a monthly subscription fee for heated seats, rent a phone, stream a movie, get rid of physical media, rent a GPU.

But if GeForce NOW doesn't take off, and they get convinced that the AI bubble will not pop, I could see them pulling a Micron and ending their consumer product lines.

They also shared the poorly anonymized messages it received from target "customers" who complained about the unsolicited invoices. On example of this poor anonymization is removing the sender's username but leaving the domain name, when the domain name is, for example, a personal domain for a single person.

I do think it's impressive that LLMs can reliably solve them, and I recognize LLMs are getting much better at navigating more ambiguous and expansive tasks. But I'm not impressed by any person who can solve ARC-AGIs, and nor would I even look down on a person who couldn't solve them all. I'd certainly never consider ARC-AGI results when deciding whether to hire someone.