As you would know ADHD is a problem with regulation, not capacity however with this stroke it appears that his capacity has fundamentally changed and is further impacted by the dysregulation.

It's still early, and we haven't seen the specialist yet but I'm taking this hypothesis to them and (if I remember to) will update/edit here with their response.

One not mentioned that comes to mind is E-tap, used by electrical engineers. Well into the five figure territory once all the various bells and whistles were added.

However the most expensive software I ever saw in the wild was some little known simulation platform for a mathematician running predictive models (it also did this with 3D graphics, so both senses of the term) on mine/rail/port operational scenarios. That was into low six figures a seat and five in annual maintenance.

... And let's not forget the the $30k workstation needed to run it too.

It's Authentication/Identity. But really it's a federated system of consent where you can allow one authoritative holder of some information about you to transmit it to another. Simple E.g. omitting many details but say some federal government agency (A) wants my driver's licence number. because I use the same identity for both (A) and my state department of transport (B) I can tell (B) it's ok to send it to (A). (A) and (B) are both in the "network" which is governed by a central Register (R) and verifies each to each other so they can securely share data over standardized channels. The central register does not get involved beyond legitimising (A) and (B) to each other. The benefit is for a lot of cases the specific information stays with the relevant party, you just consent to when one needs to borrow some from another.

Yes, additional metadata. Totally understand it adds in a lot of complexity but could help for fine-tuning an LLM.

With regards to dates, not a lawyer, but for Federal I would go with "Start Date", it's always the day following the End Date of the previous comp. The Date of Assent (well the year at least) is in the title, but also the first start date. The registration date can be either before or after the start date depending. [1][2]

The tricky part is when sections have different commencement dates that are detailed in the text. I don't know anywhere that is easily accessible. And, if you think about it, usually the most important information for say businesses being regulated.

I wouldn't worry with timezone per say, it's relative to each particular state.[3] i.e. why polling closes in a federal election at 6pm in each state rather than coordinated with ACT.

[1] Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2003 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00213

[2] Sections 4 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00213

[3] Sections 37 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00213

Most of the time I end up having to just take half an hour to manually regex and format plain text.

A particular case I have is where there is a draft bill put out for industry/community consultation. Quickly diffing the releases is the goal but for now usually relies on one (preferably two) subject matter experts to read the whole thing top to bottom to build an understanding. I don't think these would be available via the means you've secured. They are usually hosted on a relevant government entities website as PDFs

One last question/comment, have you considered adding some additional reference info like the federal list of entities?[1]

[1] https://www.finance.gov.au/government/managing-commonwealth-...

(Symantec Endpoint Protection chrome extension)

Sure, you're aligning your approach to a machine, but it's not completely dissimilar.

I struggle with delegation in general, even taking the time to delegate to LLMs, mostly because I work faster intuitively and expressing myself clearly just takes longer. With the benefits of semi-repeatable results, personally, I've found the most benefit working with GPT3 & 4 over the last 6 months has been getting better and more conscious in describing what I'm after.

Or even "prescription medication that effects brain not always helpful for people who don't need it"

Anecdotal evidence but my problem solving was good before medication and better now that I have the right medication.

Live and learn. Thanks! :-)

Long before pokemon swept the west, our teacher would take us bird watching. We'd create entries in the cards app for each one we spotted, then research the birds in the library to fill out the entry. Then, as a class we'd trade (share) our research with each other.

FWIW from my point-of-view as someone in one of those companies working on products (and who hasn't read the paywalled article) I see a few things playing out that are not new, mostly it's the same newer, bigger hammer syndrome:

1. Trying to solve the same old inconsequential problems but with new tech

This happens all the time. Eventually you realise that the problem is actually relatively benign. You want the hammer to hit home every time but realise that even if it did there is no real value gained.

2. Trying to solve a problem that's already been solved with existing more established tech

Open calls for ideas in company innovation labs or platforms are full of noise. Some of that noise is always around the same automation problems, usually some kind of extraction or some kind of categorisation in a workflow. Most of the time products exist but people are just unaware. In large companies the capability might already exist in house but there's a "must invent here" bias

3. Trying to solve hard problems without the right domain or technical expertise

There are legitimate problems that appear innovative and novel, maybe ones that have been waiting for this level of capability to come along so they can execute, however, adequate knowledge of the technical domain (fine-tuning, prompt engineering, zero-shot, context) or the problem domain (how to read a cat-scan) limits their ability to make a cobbled together PoC reliable, repeatable, scalable, trusted.

Think of it as some generalist buying a stock rally car to build a new racing team, but doing it all themselves instead of hiring a mechanic to tune it properly, or a driver to give you the mechanic feedback... or the mechanic to tell the driver what they can and can't do at the extremes... or the driver to tell the mechanic to FO and "fix" it. Dialogue.

4. Problem is too niche and hard to communicate effectively

If a project succeeds in an organisation and there's no one around to hear it, did it really succeed?

5. Lack of existing innovation culture, strategy, or clear direction hamstrings any serious attempt

A non-starter. A lot of organisations still can't embed or operationalise their good ideas properly. If they can't do that already, it's unlikely to change here.

6. LLM successfully implemented into existing product but no body notices or cares.

The whole "put a clock in it" from product design or "get it to send email" of software.

7. Hard problems even with the right attitude and team still take time solve effectively with relatively new technology

Ignoring the legitimate institutional roadblocks of assuring privacy, security, safety, ethics etc. It's still early days. Cost of O&M long-term is still kind of uncertain, as are some of the basic parameters like the context window. Increasing the size of it could fundamentally change your approach. Anyone who was building a system before plugins were announced probably needed to re-think a number of things and go back to the drawing board. Sure there are some who will just continue as planned and iterate later, but some will be cautious before locking in.

Lastly, I know personally for me, LLMs have become a large part of enhancing my daily workflow. They have increased both the quantity and quality of my output but the 2 fundamental problems for me are:

1. Remember it's there and to use it. (Can what I'm doing could be done with LLM assistance)

or

2. How to formulate a question or request. (This is a fundamental problem of all "work" and "management" how do you define and communicate effectively?)

Yum!