fwiw, I feel like LLM code generation is scaffolding on steroids, and strapped to a rocket. A godsend if you know what you're doing, but really easy to blow yourself up if you complacent. At least with where models are today; imho.
Scaled up and spread out - this probably gets you pretty close to consciousness(?)
Conway's game of life, but instead of colored squares with rules, they're LLM's with some kind of weighting - all chattering back and forth with one another - bubbling up somehow to cause speach/action
Decades ago I read The Society of Mind by Marvin Minsky. He pushed this sort of idea, that consciousness is composed of individual, competing processes. Worth a revisit!
Never even though of the implications for AI+AR for mundane seeming applications like hearing aides. Really cool. Even when you remove the flood of johnny-come-lately, "just add AI" marketing - the amount of things that can be enhanced to legitimately make peoples lives better truly does seem staggering.
The prospect of inserting a plausible bullshit generator owned by a tech megacorp between myself and the outside world seems more dystopian than making my life better.
This is absolutely the way. And mosquito weather tends to be fan weather anyway!
Works pretty well for ventilating enclosed spaces, too—just make sure the fan points inward, pumping positive pressure into the space, so there’s a steady outward flow from the rest of the door/window/whatever.
I've known of this poem for 30 years now (having memorized it in elementary school) - and looking at it 30 years later I spotted something I had never seen before:
The rhyming scheme. AABA, BBCB, CCDC, DDDD. Its interlocking with kind of a cheat at the end since the final line is a duplicate. Absolutely beautiful.
Its like wine. I can tell the difference between a $4 bottle of wine and a $14 bottle of wine, but I couldn't tell the difference between a $14 bottle of wine and a $140 bottle of wine if my life depended on it.
I also like wine, but it’s rare that I’ve had a $140 bottle of wine that wasn’t actually a $30 bottle, but I was at a restaurant. It is real easy to be underwhelmed by a $30 bottle.
I’d also put a bottle of Trader Joe’s 2 buck chuck ($4 cab) up against 75% of the $30 bottles and I bet in a blind taste test it would win.
That isn’t to say that people’s taste buds don’t work. I’ve spent a bit of time tasting wine essentially blind (to price) at vineyards, brought that same wine home and been underwhelmed again… I learned that even 30min in a hot car trunk (140F) can change wine. The wine I tasted from the storage cave that was great, sucks when I got it home. I actually tested after I got it home and saw this.
I think a lot of the “wine flavors being mysterious and psychosomatic” is actually poor storage. I know Reddit disagrees with me, but now that I climate control my wine when I bring it home, I haven’t had the same issues.
This is a fact for beer (hoppy beer specifically) that is well known and pasted all over the Russian River Pliny the elder label. I believe it’s a fact for wine as well. Because I’ve had a couple $100 bottles that were stored well, and the memory of that taste is still with me. I want to find a way to repeat it. (Without spending $100 for a bottle)
I find it extra ironic that experian is now pimping a service to aggregate and cancel your subscriptions - but if I want to freeze my children's credit reports I have to have a notarized original of their birth certificate and bring it to committee before they will approve. I'm exaggerating obviously, but not by much.
Have you tried to do it? There's a lot of "We found an unspecified discrepancy in your submitted documentation and are unable to service your request. Please resubmit after fixing the unspecified problem" dark responses from credit bureaus.
Which is what this rule making initiative seems to be about -- you shouldn't have an advertised process that actually leads to black holes (because it's in the company's financial interest for them to).
I have done it for two kids at all 3 bureaus with no issues. Probably spent 15min filling out the forms and mailing the envelopes.
> you shouldn't have an advertised process that actually leads to black holes (because it's in the company's financial interest for them to).
Of course, but not providing appropriate levels of service to the small percentage of people because they are inconsequential to big businesses is pervasive across the economy.
Can't recommend privacy.com enough for literally this use case. If I have to spend more than five minutes trying to figure out how to cancel - I'm just turning off my card...
I think most of the times that works and companies don't pursue the small amounts, but turning off the card doesn't actually end the agreement between you and the company. It could end up on your credit report.
I haven't used privacy.com but I recall some one saying you can put whatever name you want on the service, which sounded implausible to me. On the other hand, a prepaid debit card can do the same thing so maybe it was true. Obviously this wouldn't work for all services though.
> turning off the card doesn't actually end the agreement between you and the company
I know of two hedge funds who buy these claims at a discount and pursue them. If you aren’t concerned with your credit score it probably isn’t a problem; I doubt either sues.
Businesses have customers whose cards have been declining, e.g. someone who used Privacy.com to rotate the card number but never actually cancelled their contract. The fund buys those claims for unpaid bills for pennies on the dollar. They then send collection notices to collect those bills. If you don’t pay, it goes to collections, which is reportable to the credit reporting agencies.
Came up in a personal discussion where I admitted I sometimes do this with my Apple Card.
For what it's worth, I've had terrible experiences with privacy.com. Lots of dark patterns, and suddenly demanded a picture with photo ID while holding the account hostage. Strongly suggest avoiding.
musing: It feels like Google has a reputation of creating a bunch of products and killing them off within 3-5 years.
It seems like this helps with initial adoption of the product (backed by Google!) but erodes trust in the brand every time they axe a cult-favorite ("why would I invest time in ${x} when they'll probably just kill it off in a couple of years anyway..?")
Would it be better if Google launched these products subsidiaries without (obvious) links to Google?
Total Arm-Chair QB exercise, but one I feel might be interesting to get feedback on...
