Ladybird seems to be embracing vibe coding, so I think there's a great opportunity to compare them. After a couple of months of vibe coding what do you people here think about Ladybird's progress?
Or the adb escape hatch. IIRC, their adb equivalent is limited to having a small number of apps installed at the same time, needs each app to be periodically reinstalled at short intervals (IIRC, one week), and you need to have your expensive Apple laptop with you for that reinstall.
Even with Android becoming much more closed, it's still more open than Apple.
> Having a small number of apps installed at the same time, needs each app to be periodically reinstalled at short intervals (IIRC, one week), and you need to have your expensive Apple laptop with you for that reinstall.
Not true if one pays up ($99/yr), in which case the interval becomes one year. Also apps that sign and install other apps with one's cert exist.
I said for my family. I will likely still be buying android for myself, probably the grapheneos one if it comes out.
But for most people, the existing flow to allow external sources is already too much. For other people to install my APKs, while possible, is a slow and painful procese. Add waiting 24 hours? As good as blocked.
Does someone know whether people saw the "predictions" in the actual test? Because saying random numbers blindly is not what I was doing. After my next number was predicted correctly, I changed my "strategy" to increase randomness (be less predictable).
So I don't know if this result is comparable to the one from the study.
My results were:
The house called 10 of your 87 scored numbers: 11%.
Blind guessing would average about 9.7 of them (11%).
Only 5 of the 206 people in a psychology study were more random than you. The house found you extremely hard to read.
You’re right. If you notice the instructions in the game, it encourages you to go as fast as you can. I keep the numbers up there just to make sure the voice recognition is working properly and to make the game seem more engaging.
But yeah, I agree: I think this does influence the results, since it makes it easier to be more random because you can essentially try to play in an adversarial fashion by adjusting your results according to feedback from the predictor itself.
In the original study, that wasn’t the case. They had a three-by-three grid of numbers and a metronome as well, which meant that they couldn’t slow down or speed up and had to go at a very specific rate with zero feedback until the very end.
Maybe I should add the equivalent of a "Hard" mode which makes the game more faithful to the original study.
If somebody missed that one news, one can easily get to the conclusion that SpaceX tried to manipulate index funds to buy their shares, and sold into an incredibly high valuation to keep the money. Not to reinvest it into the business.
I've read "amusing ourselves to death" and there the author also criticises the idea that new technologies are "just tools".
The invention of the telegraph changed how information is traded and the contents of newspapers, the invention of the TV changed politics, and so on.
The medium shapes the message and induces behaviours from us. We never thought about wanting to promt chatgpt, or watch people doing sports on a screen. But the possibility of doing these things makes us change.
LLMs obviously have and will continue shaping the world, and I am also afraid that it will create a worse future than the one that we had until now.
I think deployment should slow down and research should be financed and diversified.
The difference is that TVs and other past inventions weren't pushed on everyone at all cost. You could and still can live a mostly TV-free live. Workplaces aren't making you watch TV while you work. There is no one insinuation that you'll be obsolete if you don't embrace TVs. Your existing appliances didn't suddenly sprout a TV screen. Instead, people bought TVs because they saw value in them, at a time of their choosing.
>The medium shapes the message and induces behaviours from us.
Basically the Homo Sapiens history is the history of making and using tools. That is for example how we got the hands we've got, and our social organization was shaped by agriculture and later by the mass production and now more and more by information technology with AI becoming the major part of it.
>I am also afraid that it will create a worse future than the one that we had until now.
were hunters-gatherers better of worse than agricultural village dwellers? There is no clear answer. I feel that each stage of the progress made our lives better while some people want "back to the caves" though i think they probably never spent a night under open skies.
>I think deployment should slow down and research should be financed and diversified.
You can't slow down it in all countries at the same time. And thus slowing down it in any given country would just put that country behind.
But doesn't this argument presume that every technology must be adopted with as much zeal as possible. That every tool is good for the future of human race. Should we not question the technologies that we so readily adopt? I'm not against AI as a whole, and as Torvalds said, "genie is out of the bottle now", but does this mean that any effort to question or regulate technology translates to "primitivism", or is it just pragmatic to do so?
>does this mean that any effort to question or regulate technology translates to "primitivism"
more so than not. We are highly adaptable, and that is our strength as a species. We are that adaptable because of our brain, and we have such brain as a result of adapting again and again. We should pay more attention to how to adapt to new tech at individual and social levels, and that adaptation would in turn again advance us. Whereis strict-prohibition-like-measures really play against our adaptability as they favor slow-to-adapt traits of our species, again at individual and social level.
There are of course cases where our adaptation is very limited - like for example highly radioactive environments, and so we chose to strictly regulate nuclear tech.
Practically speaking i'm all for government funded job retraining where it is possible, and for strong safety net to soften social impact of new tech. And in particular nothing prevents the government to charge a modest tax on each token and use those collected taxes to support the affected people.
> The invention of the telegraph changed how information is traded and the contents of newspapers, the invention of the TV changed politics, and so on.
Isn't that kind of the definition of a tool? Something that does something useful and as a result changes the way the world works (whether in a big way or a small way)? Wouldn't be much of a tool if it wasn't useful. It wouldn't be very useful if it didn't have an impact.
Your very sarcastic, uninteresting comment getting downvoted is not an indication that forum isn't intellectual. It's an indication that you aren't behaving intellectually.
I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.
reply