madibo3156

This was the linked article in original post earlier, and it got changed, right? I'm not going crazy?

However, so-called AI crawlers are not the same as crawlers of yore. They hit live pages every time a user prompt triggers a web search.

This Web Search API, unlike an AI crawler, only fetches periodically. It feels like a step in the right direction for managing resource strain across the internet. If only the LLM giants could do something similar.

Thanks for your reply. To me, kidhood is a developmental time where self-destructive habits have more time and malleability to course-correct. On the flip side it's a breeding ground for addiction.

I guess I'd rather kid tries to screw life up while parent has more leverage to fix it. But you could argue proactive preventative leverage is even better.

In my mind I think if a person really wants to explore something, they will find a way. If kid is susceptible to social media addiction, it will find its way in. Yes, it's more dangerous when young. Conversely if it happens later in life they're on their own to combat it, without having learned through experience. That was my thinking. May not be accurate.

`maximum-scale=1` on the meta viewport tag.

Sounds like you accepted it but did not outright say whether you're content with it. Do you think it was a little silly now or do you still stand by it? Basically, if you were to go back knowing what you do now, would you have still locked down social media use for your kids? What would you have done differently if anything?

Maybe it's something like "make purchasing decisions that maximally bolster your local economy, in aggregate, in the long term, where you deem it suitable for your needs"? Doesn't roll off the tongue though. Buy local.

The mechanism is interesting, but I'm not fully understanding the importance. We say it was done this way because a user would appreciate the speedup. The difference is one traversal versus expected one and one-half traversals. How slow was this traversal at the time for this difference to be significant?

Part skeptic and part zetetic, what prompt would you have used?

My impression is that this is an oversimplified demonstration of what can happen when you prompt Claude in a system with many more variables (than two buttons and two colours).

If I want the button to turn blue and that's it, what instead do I ask? Even in a complicated system with many levers, what do I request other than the desired end result, hoping that Claude pulls the right levers to produce something acceptably close to what I think I asked for?

It's not stated plainly in the article what the problem is, so here:

Each participant rolls a die. For there to be no possibility of a tie, no die can share a face number with another die—every face across all dice must be unique. For it to be fair, the distribution of numbers across all faces must be such that no die has an advantage over another die—the odds of rolling the highest number must be exactly the same for each die. The problem is in finding the combination of faces across five dice that satisfies these constraints. One difficulty of this is that each added player changes the whole equation—the odds get recalculated and new faces must be chosen. The secondary goal is to minimize the number of faces on the die.

> Amid the overall electronics boom thanks to A.I., … one piece of electronics is almost unchanged financially. That is the digital display or flat-panel monitor.

…is the full quote. Come on, guys.

Is it sophisticated? Maybe. Is it the alignment problem? Exhibits qualities of it, yes. Is it surprising? No.

The event strikes me as reminiscent of one's first go at programming, without familiarity of computer code: Tell the computer to do something obvious. Why the heck did it do that instead? Over time, one learns how the computer thinks. Apply this to any novel system. Or perhaps aptly any system with capabilities that are yet to be well understood by its user.

The article is trying to spin mystic out of simple bullcrap. Maybe that's just my viewing through turd-tinted lenses after the last few years of reading this drivel on repeat. More plausibly it is true that we've forgotten our own baby steps.

Nobody's said it in this thread so I'll drop it here where you ask "Why save physical books?"—

The problem isn't with morals or copyright. What we're up in arms about is case law. Past rulings have implied that destruction of books significantly contributes to the process being "transformative". This encourages companies to destroy the books. I think this is really dumb.

Why save physical books? It's because the reason to destroy them isn't good. If you think there's too many bad books out there, that's a different argument. Maybe your fight is against consumerism, I don't know.

But Wikipedia has done a good job of it. If Google's AI summaries could actually provide correct answers with verifiable sources without so-called hallucinations, it would be good. You could argue that people don't actually check Wikipedia's sources. That's because Wikipedia has built, and worked to keep, its users' trust. On the other hand, what is Google doing?