The author proposes ways for an AI to signal when it is wrong and to learn from its mistakes. But that mechanism feeds back to the core next token matcher. Isn't this just replicating the problem with extra steps?

I feel like this is a framing problem. It's not that an LLM is mostly correct and just sometimes confabulates or is "confidently wrong". It's that an LLM is confabulating all the time, and all the techniques thrown at it do is increase the measured incidence of LLM confabulations matching expected benchmark answers.

It is only going to get worse. Most of us who were young adults when the iPhone was announced are in our 40s now, and presbyopia is a real thing. In a few years my daily QOL will be better served by a bigger phone and I suspect many people around my age are feeling the same thing. The "small electronic accessory I bring around" niche will be filled by smartwatches.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/dijok5/is_there_a_... (how quaint the prices look, a mere 6 years on)

The article gave me a vague, off-topic sense of unease but your comment crystallised the feeling for me.

I really wish less emphasis is placed on this kind of blue-sky, "strategic" thinking, and more placed on the "chores". Legwork, maintenance, step-by-step execution of a plan, issue tracking, perspective shifting etc. are all, in my opinion, critically important and much more deserving of praise and respect than so-called "strategic" thinking.

Which, IME, most people can't do anyway! After they've talked their big talk you suggest that there's a practical, on-ground problem and they look at you accusingly, like you're sabotaging their picture. And I'm like, no, my friend; reality is sabotaging your picture, it's just the two of us here and you're not losing any face by me pointing that out, and also if you were an actual strategic thinker you'd have taken my on-ground problem into account already...

Many of the changes are active voice to passive voice. It might sound more polite, but in reality comes off as sneering or condescending.

For e.g., if I've already told you something, I usually change communication channels to a more casual one (pick up the phone, pop my head up, walk over, go on a chat channel) and say: "hey, that question you had, it's already addressed in my email, see this bit over here...".

I would not, as the website suggests, say any of this:

- "There seems to be a disconnect here as this information has already been provided."

- "The information has not changed since the last time it was communicated."

- "As indicated prior."

If you did this to me, I would think you are a jerk.

He's a longtime Starcraft fan for example, and offered an ex Starcraft pro a job on the strength of that alone.

There is a reddit thread where he participated in that had some interesting perspectives that I think may be of interest to this forum: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/dl3o2p/billionai...

I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. It's more likely that nobody "allowed" the situation to happen, and the publishers just had much stronger bargaining power. So libraries either pay to participate and adjust their budget accordingly, or don't have e-books to lend out.

Or, put more provocatively in a forum run by a startup incubator: capitalism allowed this to happen.

My local library does appear to have a large enough budget to cater for this new demand but I can understand if many other city libraries don't.

I would add that the goal isn't just to convince the company to delete the software, but rather to acknowledge and accept that there is no support, no warranty, and if things go wrong it's on their hands.

The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.

The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.

If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.

The author has some great reasons to grow and keep big muscles, but I have some thoughts to add for that "majority of people at the office" crowd.

Thought #1: there is one item that the author mentions that I think is absolutely critical yet buried all the way at the bottom.

> If you’re over 30 (or even in your 20s and able to afford it), hire a personal trainer to start. They can check your form and avoid any kind of injuries. With weights, it is really easy to get a bad form, no matter how many youtube videos you watch. I went to see a Physiotherapist 4 years after I started squats, and this is the best thing I’ve ever done. She retaught me everything I think I knew about squatting.

I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to focus on form so you avoid injuries. When you're older, hurting yourself will knock you off the exercise horse for years. Also, note that if you're in your 30s and have been mostly sedentary your adult life, the squat and deadlift may not even be movements that you have the range of motion to do.

Don't fall into the trap of pushing yourself because the program said so or the internet said so or because you feel inadequate next to the huge gains that people are showing off on the internet. There is absolutely no shame in taking things slower. Remember your goal is not to look good naked on the beach next summer, it is to maintain healthspan into your 70s.

Thought #2: cardio is important, the author's warning about "too much cardio because your joints will give out and you will lose muscle" is really odd and feels like I'm browsing /r/fitness in 2010. If you're very concerned about your joints, do something lower impact, like swim or cycle or row or the elliptical.

But do take your rest days.

Thought #3: stronglifts 5x5 is great if you're in your 20s or your early 30s. If you're older than that, well, you can still do it but please be careful. See thought #1 above.

The problem is that meat and dairy from humanely treated free-range animals is generally more expensive, and most people aren't willing to pay extra or cut down on their meat consumption.

And so it goes.

But people also have to eat, need shelter, want kids, have to take care of health issues, and so on. For that they need money. If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

There may be a setting you can set in the application to disable this. I don't know, I don't use Zoom.

But in any case, I think you hit the nail on the head. Just from a plain English perspective:

10.1 says that content you (as host or participant) upload to Zoom, may be used by Zoom to provide derivative information. An example listed is transcripts. Both the information you upload, and the information Zoom provides, is "Customer Content". Customer Content is your responsibility.

10.3 and 10.4 covers a wide variety of purposes for which Zoom can use the Customer Content.

10.5 says that Zoom will reasonably protect Customer Content from unauthorized disclosure, etc., but that it has no other obligations with respect to Customer Content. In particular, it can share the Customer Content with their "consultants,contractors, service providers, subprocessors, and other Zoom-authorized third parties accessing, using, collecting, maintaining, processing, storing, and transmitting Customer Content on Zoom’s or your (or your End Users’) behalf in connection with the Services or Software".

17.1, the confidentiality clause, says that Customer Content is not confidential information. That suggest the obligations of confidentiality, such as disclosing to third parties only with a confidentiality agreement in place, do not apply.

So if I'm reading this right, Zoom can disclose your meeting transcripts [edit: I meant audio of your meeting] to a third party, without an obligation of confidence between Zoom and that third party, so long as it is for the purposes of providing you the transcript feature.

Which is really strange, to say the least. At minimum I would expect Zoom to treat Customer Content as confidential.

Wish a lawyer could read this and give us (free) insight.

As a layman with respect to LLMs, I feel like Blindsight and its perspective of the chinese room puzzle is required reading. I wonder if people working in AI feel the same and I'd be really curious to know how they feel about the book.

4. Payloads on flying things have severe weight and volume limitations. This limits what you can deliver to things that are small and light.

5. An autonomous drone represents an opportunity for theft or interference. See the drone coming, then: steal the goods when it delivers, interfere with its GPS and force it into an error mode that lands the drone, etc. You don't even need to be at the destination.

6. Multicopters, the devices most people think of when they think drones, have terrible range and payload capacity. The flight mode is akin to helicopters, "beat the air into submission". On the upside, they can hover on the spot. In contrast, plane-style drones which fly aerodynamically or "on the wing", have more range (being more efficient), but have difficulty landing on specific spots and then returning back to base. There are solutions around this, but not 100% viable in all cases. VTOL planes exist for instance, but they're finicky. Parachutes as a delivery mechanism also exist, but not everything can be delivered by dropping a payload.

And much more...

Air delivery exists in places where these aren't concerns and where the cost benefit analysis skews the other way. Zipline [0] has been doing a great job delivering blood to remote areas in Rwanda for a while now. Their product, payload, delivery method, geographical location, regulatory environment, all align to make it worth it. Watch some youtube videos of their operation, it's pretty neat.

[0] https://www.flyzipline.com/

See especially the comments made by professional tuners (which matches what my own piano tuner tells me).

Some subs that didn't go completely dark are understandable, like /r/outoftheloop and /r/explainlikeimfive which have gone read-only so that readers can ask and get explanations of what's up.

But there are some surprising ones, like /r/programming. Maybe because it was created by /u/spez? Somewhat interestingly, he's also a mod of /r/outoftheloop.

It's not so much that lawyers win when people fight, the problem is lawyers.

It's that people fight. The problem is people.

And life is complicated, so when people fight, all of the simplification you desire - short contracts, arbitration, support for people to represent themselves - will very quickly succumb to the myriad of edge cases life will throw at it. So over time, you'll get complicated long contracts and complex procedural dispute resolution processes, requiring someone with specialised, deep knowledge of the process and precedents and who will advocate on your behalf, for a fee.

You know, lawyers.

People fight. That's why lawyers win.