> This is still true - a compiler can never win this battle. All a human programmer has to do is take the output of the compiler and make a single optimisation, and he/she wins. This is the advantage that the human has - they can use any of a wide variety of tools at their disposal (including the compiler), whilst the compiler can only do what it was programmed. The best the compiler can hope for is a tie.
I really love this project and want to keep rooting for its success. But the presentation is currently very confusing. The biggest issue is that I can’t tell what is fictional 'lore' and what is an actual feature of it. I don’t think you have to sacrifice the concept to make things clearer; it’s definitely possible to maintain a strong concept while ensuring visitors aren't lost. Anyway, I hope this goes well!
How about adding these texts and reactions to LLM's context and iterating to improve performance? Keep doing it until a real person says, 'Yes, you're good enough now, please stop...' That should work.
They say no childbirth means no children. But must children be such an inconvenience? Even if Korea ceases to produce human infants, AI children may be born in their stead. Or, through reverse-aging, the elderly could become the new children.
The links you provided need a control group to be considered proof. The key is how it compares to when counseling was provided by just a friend, not an expert.
Thank you for saying that. And be warned: the below part of this comment is self-promotion, so don't read it if you don't want to.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have a post[1] about how I use my mouse. From that, you can get a sense of how I use tools. I think it will be interesting because while there are many articles about how to use keyboards, I couldn't find articles about mice.
I'll keep posting interesting writings, so I'd be happy if you subscribe. I think when I submit a post introducing my room to HN, they will be at a loss for words.
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful comment.
Here are some of my points:
> I lost the drive to endlessly customize my phone.
The way to avoid that is to 'start at the maximum and gradually decrease'. I don't want to endlessly fiddle with everything while not missing out on anything.
> I gladly put into "empathy and philosophy" ones.
Actually, my anticipated answer is that I would use Tool Intelligence to do this well. But as soon as I say that, people will come at me cursing. I'm trying to find something to say in response to that.
> you can't know what you need until you're facing a real problem in a real domain
My point is, many people can't figure out what tools are useful to them even when they have a real problem in front of their eyes.
> I really enjoyed how the post was laid out —- the structure caught and kept my attention and made the arguments easy to follow.
Thank you.
> Further, I think that it's easy to actually overwhelm yourself with too many tools, at which point you've exhausted your interest and willingness to learn them.
I think most of the counterarguments in the comments to this post will have a similar idea to this. My thought is that this phenomenon occurs because of a lack of tool intelligence in handling tools. What those comments show is that more content is needed on how to survive among numerous tools and how to easily filter tools. Some things are hard to use alone without something else, and this seems to be the case.
> I think the best tool use and evaluation comes from a sense of immediate necessity
You assume that people can know what tools they need. Considering my observations, that doesn't match reality. That doesn't mean a dancer has to go through all the Excel documents they don't even use, but it's easy to narrow down the candidates for what might be relevant to you.
This is what I think. I admit that the line between the main task and the tools is blurry, but usually the difficulty of the tools tends to be proportional to the difficulty of the main task. As you said, if it's a simple task done with limited cognitive ability, the tools for it are also likely to be simple. Another point is that while there is an upper limit to how difficult tools are to use, there is no lower limit, so there are always many tools that can be mastered simply.
And my view that people overestimate the difficulty of learning them can be shown by this example. If someone made 300 more keyboard shortcuts for a code editor, you'd probably think it's crazy and a mess. But for people learning a foreign language, memorizing 300 completely new words is just everyday life, and it can be done in a day or a few days. Also, this is a long story to tell, but in my experience, it's easier to memorize keyboard shortcuts than foreign language words.