plewd

Not much if you only use it as a glorified search engine, but the problem stems from all the other things you can make it do for personal use after jailbreaking.

That's a fair point, and it gets into intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation. Problem is that nearly all students are conditioned to care about external motivators (GPA, parental expectations, etc..) instead of "the joy of learning".

Is that really a fair comparison though? Were there any stats showing that ball pens directly impacted metrics like grades?

I understand that it's harder to see things without the benefit of hindsight, but we must agree that AI's impact on students (or society, to be even more vague) has a much larger scope.

I'm curious why this comment got flagged? At least to me it looks really human (typos, uncapitalized words, etc..)

Those that start negatively impacting day-to-day life significantly, although I believe nearly everyone can benefit from some sort of therapy.

I don't know much about stats, but does "the null is that the success rate is the same" imply that it's a sketchy methodology because they can come up with some findings ("ruder prompts are better/worse!") more often?

Isn't that exactly what the free trial is for? Am I missing something?

It's not just about documentation.

If stuff really goes wrong, you need people who deeply understand the codebase so that they know where to look and how to diagnose the issue. It might be the case in the future that LLMs become so powerful they'll diagnose any issue (I doubt it), but until then, we need people in the loop.

I honestly don't think it's possible for platforms to have "nice" algorithms like this without slowly slipping into the "maximum-engagement" algorithms we're plagued with now. I remember seeing this happen with Instagram, slowly going from a chronological feed to a confusing one where you can never be certain you've caught up with your network.

In a perfect world it would be great to have a platform that allows open-sourced algorithms for people to choose from, although that's a crazy pipe dream.

Most of them only got to that position from being loud in the first place, so I'd think you could still put them in the latter category.

I re-realized this about a week ago when the "red button vs blue button" debate started appearing a lot on Reddit and Instagram. It's frustrating when every comment is just a shallow knee-jerk reaction from one side re-iterating their perspective or clowning on the other.

The whole debate could be summarized in a paragraph or two, but the social media environment is unfortunately curated towards diluted opinions (as you said) instead of nuanced ones.

All that to say I'm happy HN is still holding strong in terms of quality as compared to other platforms.

Personally, in almost all cases I think it'd be more convenient to just prompt AI myself (and maybe get the original prompt) instead of having to sift through overly-verbose AI output from an unknown prompt.

The mental gymnastics at play here are astounding.

Why would women acclimate to it and see it as the norm while men don't? If anything, exposing men to violence will also make them more violent in their future relationships.

> There was simply not much I could work with (what I thought at the time).

This has been my big blocker keeping me from talking to most people. I feel quite adept socially once I get going, but I can usually only get to that point through mutual interests or a solid conversation topic to kick off from.

I seem to usually psyche myself out because most starters feels too fake or unsubstantive. Compliments make sense, but could you elaborate on "break the pattern and make a joke, be sarcastic respectfully"?