kevg123

Agreed, correlation isn't causation but two people on the same day with the same response that had never responded like that before, so something I'm keeping a watch for...

It's more of a meta point to me. I get that this series isn't landing for some people but the meta-observation is that given something of roughly equal substantiveness as before, these friends' motivations for long form content and discussion seem to have atrophied, perhaps largely due to the addition of the AI summary reality cipher to their lives.

It's more of a meta point to me. I get that this series isn't landing for some people but the meta-observation is that given something of roughly equal substantiveness as before, these friends' motivations for long form content and discussion seem to have atrophied, perhaps largely due to the addition of the AI summary reality cipher to their lives.

I've started down the path but I'm taking it delicately. The future may hold a whole new genre of interventions for AI atrophy.

Great idea, thanks!

I didn't provide much context but, 1) I've had deep conversations with these friends for years based on long articles or videos, and 2) I recommend maybe one or two long form items per year and they used to always review them without, "TLDR?"

So my main concern here is that my experience may be a microcosm of the shallowing of discussions correlated with some people's increased use of AI. That worries me.

It's more of a meta point to me. I get that this series isn't landing for some people, yourself included, but the meta-observation is that given something of roughly equal substantiveness as before, these friends' motivations for long form content and discussion seem to have atrophied, perhaps largely due to the addition of the AI summary reality cipher to their lives.

Of course, correlation isn't causation. Maybe they both just got older and more lazy, but given their reliance on AI summaries in other debates happening recently, I'm worried.

I wasn't even hyping it though. I shared it among friends to spark discussion. Sure, there's some hyperbole, but I found it thought provoking.

(FYI, I didn't downvote your comment)

You might be right but they used to read much more and our arguments used to be deeper. The changes I'm seeing in them are highly correlated to their increased use of AI.

Maybe it's something like that AI allows them to indulge in their shallowness/laziness by giving them the impression that they're not doing that.

Makes sense. One idea would be if the browser could detect packet loss (e.g. netstat -s and look for TCP retransmissions, and equivalent on other OSes) and open more sockets if there is.

> As the packet loss rate increases, HTTP/2 performs less and less well. At 2% packet loss (which is a terrible network quality, mind you), tests have proven that HTTP/1 users are usually better off - because they typically have up to six TCP connections to distribute lost packets over. This means for every lost packet the other connections can still continue.

Why doesn't HTTP/2 use more than one socket?