mberlove

This is very true, but difficult to sustain collectively, which I think is the problem. From what I've seen of those communities, there is a lot of spam from low-quality projects, which of course is easier to deliver through AI. That shouldn't invalidate AI solutions categorically, but a ban starts to appear to many as the best solution (not that it is the best solution -- just it appears like it).

I keep them as reference, primarily. It's useful (and comforting?) to have a non-malleable point-of-truth.

Some books get out of date too fast. Though even a book specific to one architecture will retain relevance for core principles.

Structured and precise prompts help a lot, IMHO. Most models do definitely get "lost" even within their context window. I've found it handy to keep templates of structured prompts that include examples and explicit requirements. Of course YMMV...

I don't know what it is that creates this feeling, but I am so drawn to read the text when I click into the site. Much more so than on Wikipedia or other online sources. Is it just nostalgia? I don't have any concrete memories of Encarta, other than a general awareness. Is it written better? Maybe slightly, if at all - I wouldn't say that Wikipedia content is not written well, on average.

So what is it? I genuinely wonder. Maybe just the style of the visuals, a throwback to when a written piece of content online "mattered" more, as it represented something more, too.

It may not matter, but distinguishing what captivates and what naturally glosses seems like it may matter greatly in a space suffused by content.

The author makes a good point, but also, the visual appeal of this blog is very readable and appealing. Not a format I would have thought of but it's a pleasant surprise.

Asking this honestly...if certain kinds of inflammation tend to accelerate aging, and those inflammations can be controlled or decreased, does that, in effect, at least slow (if not actually reverse) aging? Granted that the headline is sensationalized, it seems like there may still be a point being made that is valid.

This specific finding is minor, but its implications are not IMHO. From the article it appears the researchers consider this a discovery in effect.

If consumer hardware is already capable (in many settings) of reproducing what were formerly research-level and industry-grade techniques, it may be a transformation in more areas of technology than would be obvious. I am very curious to see if there will be further findings in this area.

As a concept, it's intriguing. In practice, a lot of pieces need to work out just right for this particular instance of the idea to gain traction.

IMHO a few factors need to be met:

* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.

* Reliability (self-healing articles?)

* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.

If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.

1. As a sporadic viewer of the newer Simpsons, the quality appears to vary. How can any show remain consistently humorous through nearly 40 years of content? And across how many writers, over time? That being said, it's fair to expect quality. I wonder where the funding and viewership is coming from presently (if those remain related).

2. This is not strictly related to the article content, but I hope I'm not the only one disturbed by the low quality of writing coming from even AP. I don't try to look for nits to pick but this article is a good example. E.g. "triumph tinged with perfectionism." -- This is poor wording. I think I understand the meaning -- that perfectionism, which has downsides, has removed something from what is otherwise triumphant. But it is not written clearly. Another: "Nancy Cartwright arrived at her 1987 audition expecting to read for Lisa Simpson. She had other ideas." -- This reads like a line AI wrote. There are other examples scattered throughout the content.

I guess it's not really important, and I guess there's no reason for me to be picking on this article. But this is a top-of-the-line publication (in theory) and a relatively high-visibility article. I know writers are under pressure to produce content. But there are plenty of writers who perform well under pressure, and editors exist for a reason -- what does it imply that AP, among others, is disinterested in the quality of their own articles?

Everybody's got a party and if you leave, you ruin the party -- apparently. Isolated "walled gardens" are a kind of Intranet. Ingress requires buy-in (sign up, log in, identity proof, human proof); leaving means breaking out to the more transparent, connected internet, which is a big problem when data is dollars.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. More and more patterns seem hostile, antagonistic to the user, and it seems like it's an adopted practice that's taken as a standard. I hope I'm wrong.

Is there a way to keep up to date on updates and new announcements? TIA.

Agreed, from the article, there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation. Just two largely unrelated trends.

I'm not sure I understand the claims being made. I'm curious if this is experiential / anecdotal or if widespread.

I think OSS is OSS always...being able to audit it makes it (reasonably) reliable, at least in the sense of security. I can look at the code, run checks, etc. That alone doesn't guarantee things can't crash and burn, but it's a great start compared to a closed-source solution, even if that solution stands on its promises, as reputation in software is an iffy prospect today.

I'm not aware of any SoTA outside of Veo and Sora. I've found the two of them mostly comparable for one-off use cases. Veo3 might be a bit "crisper" in some uses but this is anecdotal...I'd also be curious if anyone else has a similar experience.

I've always been interested in the little I've read of Pepys, but I had no idea about this backstory!

Does anyone know when (if?) the offending passages got included in the published version?