cwalv

Once something becomes political, it becomes intertwined with all the other political issues they're concerned/upset about. Everyone suffers from this to some degree; to many, the only thing they really need to know to form an opinion is their chosen party's stance on an issue.

That sounds reasonable, and I don't doubt that it's part of the reason. Still, iiuc the solution to hallucination is that they can essentially train the model to recognize when it "doesn't know", and to say so in that case rather than just puke back the highest probability BS. I.e. it's a training time factor, not inference time, so it's not a fundamental cost issue, but more about priorities.

I don't use it that much, but I have noticed these AI overviews still seem hallucinate a lot, compared to others. Meanwhile I hear that Gemini is catching up or surpassing other models, so I wonder if I'm just unlucky (or just haven't used it enough to see how much better it is)

Maybe the answer to your question was subjective?

This problem is has already gotten so much better. In my experience it's no longer 10% of the time (I'd estimate more like 1%). In the end, you still need to use judgement; maybe it doesn't matter if it's wrong, and maybe it really does. It could be citing papers, and even then you don't know if the results are reproducible.

How do you feel about public transportation?

An OTP that's reused?

> This calculator[1] factors everything you listed, and the math doesn't work out for the hottest housing markets

That's a great calculator; I remember using it like a decade ago. And while it includes all factors they listed there are a few it doesn't:

1. If interest rates go down, you can refinance, but if they go up, the inflation and appreciation values likely will as well, but your rate is fixed, for (up to) 30 yrs (!!)

2. It's relatively easy to make improvements while you live there (and capture increased value when you leave)

3. The calculator assumes that the down payment and cost difference vs renting would be invested, which is fine but ignores psychological realities that prevent this more often than not

Also:

> The best hedge is to also "invest" in something that has value to you. Like bricks / house.

The suggestion was mentioned as a 'hedge'. The point being: you don't know what the values entered into the calculator will really end up being. Having some costs locked in can help with concerns around cash flow (and shelter costs are usually a significant percentage of costs overall). It's an "also 'invest'" strategy, so there's a whole lot not included in the calculator here as well

> I did a comp science degree, so I can't speak for the liberal arts.

By 'liberal arts' I meant the common 4 year, non-vocational education. My major was CS too, but well over half of the time was spent on other subjects.

> I get that you cant imagine this playing out. To those interested only in the degree, it's unimaginable

I can easily imagine what you describe playing out. I just wouldn't call it 'sucking the marrow' (unless you were equally avid in all your classes, which time likely would not permit).

But as you allude to in your last point, the system isn't really designed for that. It's nice when it does effectively support the few who have developed the interest, and have extra time to devote to it, as it did for you.

I'd rather see systems that were designed for it though.

> there is 0 way of telling if the work is real or not, at which point why bother?

I might argue you couldn't really tell if it was "real" before LLMs, either. But also, reviewing work without some accompanying dialogue is probably rarely considered a joy anyway.

> However, while 90% will miss the opportunity right there in front of them, 10% will grab it and suck the marrow.

Learning is not just a function of aptitude and/or effort. Interest is a huge factor as well, and even for a single person, what they find interesting changes over time.

I don't think it's really possible to have a large cohort of people pass thru a liberal arts education, with everyone learning the same stuff at the same time, and have a majority of them "suck the marrow" out of the opportunity.

This kind of "perf review" hacking works ~everywhere; how well it works correlates with how entrenched the organization is (i.e., how hard it is for new players to disrupt).

You don't have to play the game the same way to work there. But it helps to accept that others will play it, and manage your own expectations accordingly.

I agree that on intrinsic characteristics, it makes more sense than gold. But most people do not even think about what 'money' is, and as with anything there's a lot of inertia in established practices. Esp. when a key aspect of money is salability, any alternative has a very steep hill to climb.

Gradually, then suddenly

> Why would any government want this a feature?

As an issuer, they wouldn't. But nobody can issue Bitcoin anyway, so that's clearly irrelevant.

As a reserve, it would be the same ones who buy gold, for the same reason.