This is already true? Ultra processed foods and tiktok are both deleterious and both wildly successful.
Maybe what you are concerned with is a theoretical sandwich that was unfailingly addictive so that no one could escape its effects.
Its a bit like how we have gps connected maps in our pockets. Anyone born after 2000 has only a loose concept of being lost (within range of a *G tower and >1% battery) and treats paper maps as a hobby. Our children will grow up assuming their phone can do maths and programming better than human ever could.
>In five years, we'll all have phones that connect physical locations again, instead of (or as well as) people. And we'll be raising a generation of kids who don't know what it is to be lost, to not know where you are and how to get to some desired destination from wherever that is.
>Think about that. "Being lost" has been part of the human experience ever since our hominid ancestors were knuckle-walking around the plains of Africa. And we're going to lose it — at least, we're going to make it as unusual an experience as finding yourself out in public without your underpants.
of course it's authentic. the folx with good politix live in a carefully curated reality where everyone agrees with them or gets silenced.
there's thread on the front page of reddit right now, the usual drivel with a literally who on twitter snarking about 50B spent on Iran war instead of free healthcare. those who'd committed the thoughtcrime of dividing 50b by 342m and suggested that 146 bucks per person doesn't buy much healthcare are downvoted into oblivion.
ai is simultaneously taking everyone's jobs and a bubble that's about to burst.
russia is simultaneously a bankrupt paper tiger on the brink of total collapse and the greatest threat to mankind on the brink of invading every wholesome democracy on earth.
> those who'd committed the thoughtcrime of dividing 50b by 342m and suggested that 146 bucks per person doesn't buy much healthcare are downvoted into oblivion.
I suspect the criticism isn't as absurdly narrow that ALL we have to do to get M4A is swap out the war funding. It's probably people pointing out that the govt wastes plenty of money on immoral and useless things, of which the Iran war is an example.
Because you head is firmly stuffed, fingers in ears, in to the software world and you're unable to process the fact these frontier models have barely any use in real life outside of generating code.
Never mind these technologies having improved exponentially for four years, being able to hill-climb basically any domain you can describe as a goal in text?
Hill climbing is a statistical method for finding maxima in a function. If your function's range is "does stuff well", then hill climbing is equivalent to finding improvements.
Also, Wikipedia's search is free to anyone on the internet.
Of course you can’t generalize this behavior to everyone. There will most certainly be people who can be disciplined and I try to be one of them.
But I don’t know where to draw the line yet. It’s difficult to decide what parts you are offloading and what parts you keep for your own brain. Because theoretically you can offload nearly everything when you get a well-defined ticket and just give it to an agent.
Maybe it’s also just me who is having a hard time staring at LLM generated texts all day and missing the past brainstorming, pair programming or “just talking about the project” sessions with colleagues and managers.
I fear that we are moving in the direction of silos again with lots of gate keeping as everyone has their own little rubber duck to talk to now.
Systems from today (if not worked on with discipline) will be no more than an agglomeration of features glued together. But as you said, guess our fight to fight will be to be that disciplined person.
>If you have a specific question, reading LLM text can be more interesting than anything in the world.
I've noticed this as well. When I get a bot to generate something I am happy to read it (although I often skim read it). But god forbid I have to read someone's LLM generated report! Come to think of it, if someone marks the text as LLM generated, especially after they have plonked a hand typed summary or sentence at the top, I am quite happy to read it. Maybe my beef is being expected to read LLM text the same way I would read high effort human prose? I certainly read LLM text differently to human text - you know the first sentence is going to glaze you and the second paragraph will just repeat the first paragraph so you can skim those annoyances.
> I am happy to read it (although I often skim read it)
I came to think of it, LLM output is not worth to be read like human written text. It's best to just skim it and move on. The problem is when this LLM output finds its ways everywhere on the internet. Being able to skim text requires knowing the context beforehand and knowing that you're dealing with LLM generated output. If LLM output that is published was labeled as such it'd probably make us less frustrated.
For search I am perfectly happy with 3.6 Flash, its fast and servicable, and maybe being too smart is almost a problem for search and research. Mostly the edge google has here is that websites blocked for claude or chatGPT (if it respects the block) are unblocked for gemini.
This is true for literally anything you read though? It wouldn't be worth reading anyone's blogs or books if they all had the same experience. Maybe the guy who helped invent Electron and Claude Code has something interesting to say.
I went and read it and it doesn't seem to matter to me that it's about ultra-endurance events? Of course differences in stride length and endurance physiology will matter for run performance.
The full paragraph:
>Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women "artificially faster," as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.
To me both cultural and physiological differences are likely in play. I am not even sure how you could effectively seperate culture from physiology here (hard to do a randomised controlled trial on stride length - I guess Mendelian Randomisation regression might work?). Anyone confidently asserting only one or neither of these is at play is probably not stating that from a position of logic.
The claim that is being made in the article is that only cultural differences are relevant. Saying the relative effects of cultural and biological differences are hard to know would not be a very controversial statement.
Yes, which is why I am happy to state it having not read that deeply into the evidence either way. I would argue that stating "Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences" is a very strong statement that the scientific consensus has many counter-factuals available to disprove.
I think we underestimate how much skill we put into our prompts to build these personal apps or pretty much any of these few-shot vibe coded projects. Not that a complete noob couldn't do this, but they would get there much much faster if they had heard of Kotlin and downloaded an .apk from github. This isn't meant to dispute the Eunice claim or even the magic of a bot writing better programs with little more than an idea and an hour. Prompting lowers the barrier to entry, but those of us with experience are still having an easier time of it than the beginners.
reply