From a science standpoint, I'd say whatever "results" you got are completely worthless.

> I’ll generally have some sort of hypothesis of what kind of result I’m expecting, given that my understanding is correct

And how do you know if your understanding is correct, if you are only taking what the LLM gives to you and you are not able to verify independently?

> Science is what happens when you expect something, test something, and get a result.

Right, but has any LLM come up with any hypothesis on its own? Has any AI said "given all this literature that I read, I'd expect ?".

But to even *know* what is more useful, it is crucial to have walked the walk. Otherwise we will all end up with a bunch of people trying to reinvent the wheel, over and over again, like JavaScript "developers" who keep reinventing frameworks every six months.

> which nobody would buy for any other tool

I don't know about you, but I wasn't allowed to use calculators in my calculus classes precisely to learn the concepts properly. "Calculators are for those who know how to do it by hand" was something I heard a lot from my professors.

Maybe I should just remove it from the sign-up form altogether and use it as a honeypot.

Even if this approach doesn't work long term, the important thing is to establish product-market fit, and to get enough people committed to the idea that your product is their gateway out of the closed platforms.

I can think of at least three different ways to set up a system that can go around the API restrictions and re-serve the data to a different client that the user can control. But if I go and implement any of those, someone will try it and give up on my product until that approach gets shut down.

By selling lifetime subscriptions, the users get invested in the success of the product as well and they will be more willing to fight the restrictions that the companies impose with you.

This deserves a few qualifiers. I think this should be applied to any service that is

- "free" or "freemium"

- wrapped as a black box which gives no way out for customers.

There are plenty of companies out there who provide services based on FOSS, but we collectively shy away from paying them because it seems "silly" to pay for software that people can run for free.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47540626

Points: 19

# Comments: 0

I don't mean to pick on your comment specifically, but it's saddening to see how after these years of the "appification" of the internet and corporations successfully conditioning us to think of terms of their walled gardens, we lost the web.

There shouldn't be a "main" discussion. Our browsers should be able to find these links and present the information in a way that it makes sense to consumer, not the publisher. This gets deeply frustrating for me now that I am working more on ActivityPub and Linked Data. Most of the AP projects are so focused on emulating the closed gardens, they don't even think about building their systems with linking as the primary discovery method.

Not quite. My original comment was in response to "I see people violating rule X anywhere, even though I was told it was 'wrong'".

All I am saying is one shouldn't be basing their behavior solely on what they see others "getting away with".

Are you just looking for an argument here?

Standards are not absolutes.