michaericalribo

I've been clamoring for this for a year now, but I'm so accustomed to the web interface I think I'll wait until it's matured:

- Can't adjust font display size

- Can't open multiple chat windows at once

- Can't Cmd+F within a chat to find content

Hoping it succeeds, waiting until it does.

Can confirm, it was an Encyclopedia Brown book and it was World War One vs the Great War that gave away the sword as a counterfeit!

Wow, 6.5 hours is a long time to do anything that requires focus, much less a spacewalk…!

When will Gemini release a desktop app and enable MCP and coding agents??

So, no third party source.

First skiing, now this -- you'd think Apple would get their act together and come up with a better solution than "turn it off"

Science is hard, and that's why science rarely gives black-and-white answers. This study is not the one final word on the matter. But that doesn't mean it's not still useful.

Science is done based on the evidence that is found, and this counts as some evidence. Does it answer every question? Of course not. Does it help improve our understanding of the occurrence of it? Yes.

Correlation is not causation, but where there's smoke, there's often a fire—as these findings continue to be validated (and there have been other studies that find similar links), it becomes more and more relevant to understand why there is such a correlation—to find a causal mechanism, if it exists, or to confirm that it's just spurious correlation.

The author notes that in the data analysis, ChatGPT hallucinates an incorrect fact…there seems like such a huge gulf between “ChatGPT can do 90% of a data analysis but some might be wrong” and “ChatGPT can do data analysis with great accuracy.”

It’s a difference between proof of concept and production ready software. Maybe these shortcomings can be addressed in a larger software ecosystem, but ChatGPT still feels pretty far from properly replacing human work—it’s just not reliable enough

Is there any scientific evidence to support the value of AI therapy?

I did a PhD in statistics, and spent a lot of that time doing applied modeling.

My perspective is that MCMC is one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century. There are pros and cons to different samplers, lots of caveats, concerns over convergence—all valid. Still, MCMC opens up a whole new world of model building, letting you easily try a whole slew of models. It provides flexibility, even creativity. As a concept it’s clever. As a technical achievement it’s amazing.

Assuming it didn’t just start hallucinating plausible sounding phrases

> CRISPE Prompt Framework:

But what is the R??