The closest analogy I can think of to The Great Gatsby is American Psycho. The whole point of it is to feel like a pretentious act played by the characters. They’re not meant to be relatable or show growth. I guess it’s one of those things that either resonates with you or doesn’t, but it still has value in “getting it.” Most people never escape their status chase and behavior loops.
So basically, no one knows the correct spelling or where it came from, but in true redditor fashion everyone insists it’s the more intellectual option and everyone who disagrees is an idiot.
I'd not seen the spelling "sike" until today; but I've been spelling it "psych" since I was in grade school in the early 70's. Definitely derives from "psyching someone out", i.e., confusing them or tricking them (in that I first heard "psych" as shorthand for "psych out"). I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's older than that.
I don’t know. The old models were much more concise, answering your question in a couple of sentences. At some point they just started outputting walls of text for every prompt.
It's not a conspiracy to say it's unwise to expect a company to drive a research & product direction that will directly impact their reduce. Some might be smart enough to realize it's the right long game, but it takes leaders who understand and plan out second order consequences.
Bullshit. It would cost them more money to post process all the bullshit and then ship that, instead they just point the cannon at your face and pull the trigger.
This reminds me of the story of Narcissus. The tragedy is that he cannot love anyone who loves him, because he cannot love himself. When he rejects the advances of the young man Ameinias, he is punished by Nemesis who proclaims that Narcissus “would never be able to be loved by the one he fell in love with.” The irony is that this was already his curse; after his punishment, he fails to recognize his own face in a pool of water, and falls in love with his wounded self, who cannot love him back.
It’s just the wrong analogy. Harnesses, for the most part, extend an agent’s capabilities and better ground them in the real world through tools and the ability to check external sources, rather than restricting them.
Yet one of the reasons harnesses abstract tool calls is to control what agents can do instead of just yoloing commands and inline python scripts. It's such a central feature, and agents are so hard to control, that harnesses like claude code and codex use an AI classifier to additionally auto-approve tool calls.
Think about how much scrolling through UIs, settings menus, and different interfaces we have for every app that are all designed differently. Is this really peak technology, or something that is just the best we’ve been able to do without “smart” agents that can manipulate these programs themselves?
Reactionary emotional advice does no good, it just makes people want to hold their positions more defensively. If you care enough to say something, care enough to say it with reasons that might shift someone’s perspective.
Well that is how it can feel, but sometimes the reason you die is just because the game design sucks. E.g. the car chases in the Yakuza series are super managable when played with a mouse and a keyboard, but suck when played on a gamepad. That is mainly because of the (unadjustable) sensitivity of the gamepad and badly constructed camera angles.
Sure in the end dealing with the consequences of suboptimal game design is also just a skill issue, but I tend to play game for fun and it giving me an escape hatch for when it is just not fun makes a lot of sense.
