ndnichols

Took me a few reads too. I think the intended meaning is:

"There are those who are convinced that there is more to things; they spend their time chasing that 'more' but typically don't find it. And there are those who are convinced there isn't more to things; they find themselves frustrated at the abyss."

This sounds awesome and exactly like the easy and safe on-ramp to OpenClaw that I've been looking for! I want to believe.

Two questions as a potential user who knows the gist of OpenClaw but has been afraid to try it: 1. I don't understand how the two consumption credits play into the total cost of ownership. E.g. how long will $20 of Orthogonal credits last me? I have no idea what it will actually cost to use Klaus/OpenClaw for a month. 2. Batteries included sounds great, but what are those batteries? I've never heard of Apollo or Hunter.io so I don't know the value of them being included.

In general, a lot of your copy sounds like it's written for people already deep into OpenClaw. Since you're not targeting those folks, I would steer more towards e.g. articulating use cases that work ootb and a TCO estimate for less technical folks. Good luck, and I'm eager to try it!

I just had this interaction with ChatGPT.

Me: Reverse the digits of 12+39

ChatGPT: The sum of 12 and 39 is 51. If you reverse the digits, you get 15.

Me: Reverse the digits of 12 + 84. Only respond with the reversed digits, no explanation

ChatGPT: The reversed digits of 12 + 84 are 96.

Which makes me think that longer explanations give it more of a chance to think because it gets more passes through the model. Weird!

The challenge here is that ChatGPT and other LLMs can only think out loud. They only "think" through writing, and that's always displayed to the user.

Has anyone tried giving LLMs a scratchpad where the model could e.g. run the pipeline in order, generate the poem, and then explicitly publish it to the user without showing the earlier steps?

Thanks, we're aware of that possibility. We talk a lot with them about the motivation for the limits so hopefully they will see the value in applying them to themselves even when we're not around. But it's obviously a long journey. Hope you've developed those tools now, I'm sorry you weren't set up to succeed there.

Haha, yes, I had the same cousin! We would go play hide and seek while he played Legend of Zelda on his own in the corner :-/

We have three kids, aged 6, 3, and 10 months. The six-year-old gets ~30 minutes of Switch play a week (mostly driving circles in Rocket League), and the whole family watches an episode of Lego Masters on Sunday. That's the only screen time they get.

When our oldest was ~3, he had been potty trained for awhile. We were on vacation and he was on the iPad we had brought for the plane. He was so engrossed in the game that he didn't even notice he was peeing there in the living room. That incident really firmed up our Minimal Screen Time resolve.

Kids are going to spend their whole lives on screens, just like all of us do. IMO there's no reason to get that started early if you can help it.

That was me! I came here to comment some version of "Ahem, we were doing this in 2005 at Northwestern" and seeing your comment to the same effect made me super happy. Thanks for noticing and remembering!

Yup! I remember my eighteen-year old self being pleased with "Planet does not have Audi, but it does have Audi TTs!"

Looking at it again, I think the game works better spoken than written out like this.

I played a similar game with some folks once, but I don't know the game's name. The person who knew the rule(s) explained that there was a planet that was like Earth, but it only had a subset of the things that Earth had. We guessed different things on Earth, and the teacher would tell us whether or not this other planet had them.

Some samples include: Planet has apples, green grass, trees, runners, and cheese pizza. Planet does not have bananas, plants, people, hamburgers, cats, dogs, houses.

I won't put the rule(s) here in case people want to try it.

I for one appreciated all the "I"s! To me it shows that you understand that you are expressing a subjective opinion, not a fact in the world. I think too many people express opinions as facts with puffy language.

Compare yours to "Apple's admirable open source program is genuine and legit. If you've unfairly dismissed them in the past, give them a second look."

Are you being sarcastic? Or do you genuinely think the lack of office space in SF is a drag on the world?

I guess it's not surprising, but I was super impressed by their copy on the website. "The most original Macintosh since the original Macintosh" holds up really well 17 years later.

I'm looking forward to the iPhone 8 being advertised as "The most original iPhone since the original iPhone".