I wonder if there's research on short form but educational content or if that's fundamentally impossible.
For example I remember reading a lot of science magazines / articles growing up (granted popsci but for a kid it still teaches some things) and as I grew up things like the Economist.
Similarly I also played games like math blaster as a kid and have realized I need to intentionally provide games like this to my kids that ideally teach something (the bar being greater than zero learning) rather than playing one of those infinite running games or whatever.
I think we're probably talking about the exact same thing but am curious where content vs. short form media is.
Never worked with it myself but I've always heard the people who do describe it as Unreal c++ because to them it's completely different than regular c++ and this must be one of the reasons why
I like the alcohol comparison it's interesting in how accurate it is and yet society does it.
I also think it's obvious your comparisons of parents limiting time of things like this in the 90s is not apples to apples.
Being the person to start a new trend (in your local bubble) is non-trivial and hard to explain to a child growing up around nearly all their peers having access.
Doubly so if it's something that (I think science supports this?) is far more addicting than it was in the past.
I'm not saying folks get a free pass but I'm not sure we had a global drug crisis that 90% of the population was participating in before which from your analogy is what's happening.
Thanks again for the alcohol comparison I'm going to phrase it like that in my head to hopefully get all of my brain on board with the seriousness of the topic for my kids :)
Sorry for the ignorance but does GLP-1 fix all the nutrition / hyper-processed components of the food or is the implication here someone's weight is (making up a number) 90% of the negative effects.
My personal vice is junk food. I wish they banned junk food. I'm not sure how the law would work but it would be objectively better for me as a human if they did.
(This is completely disregarding how practical such a ban would be)
I sadly have to agree with you. I had a 30+ year orthopedic surgeon confidently tell me my ACL wasn't torn.
Two years later when I got it fixed the new surgeon said there was nothing left of the old one on the MRI so it must have been torn 1.5-2+ years ago.
On the other hand, to be fair to doctors, I had a phase of looking into supplements and learned the hard lesson that you really need to dig into the research or find a very trusted source to have any idea of what's real because I definitely thought for a bit a few were useful that were definitely not :)
And also to be fair to doctors I have family members who are the "never wrong" types and are always talking about whatever doctor of the day is wrong about what they need.
My current opinion is using LLMs for this, in regards to it informing or misinforming, is no different than most other things. For some people this will be valuable and potentially dramatically help them, and for others it might serve to send them further down roads of misinformation / conspiracies.
I guess I ultimately think this is a good thing because people capable of informing themselves will be able to do so more effectively and, sadly, the other folks are (realistically) probably a lost cause but at the very least we need to do better educating our children in critical thinking and being ok with being wrong.
In the context of reviews my experience has only been code review quality brought up as a negative thing for folks and the bar to not be a negative is low enough that folks slowly take less and less time to review code well because it isn't valued come review time.
This is probably incredibly naive so apologies if so - are things like differing obesity or other health problem causing conditions accounted for when looking at overall outcomes of the system?
The higher cost makes perfect sense to me but calculating an apples
to apples comparison of health outcomes between potentially very different populations seems potentially very difficult? Again sorry it's probably a solved problem but figured I'd ask :)
Letting people figure out cigarettes were bad for them took a very long time, and if social media is another form of addiction why not treat it how we treat other addictive products?
We could assume that this time is different and people, well children and minors specifically, will learn to avoid the addiction rather than banning them like alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
This time might be different. But it's probably not.
In my experience if the ai voice was immediately noticeable the writing provided nothing new and most of the time is actively wrong or trying to make itself seem important and sell me on something the owner has a stake in.
Not sure if this is true for other people but it's basically always a sign of something I end up wishing I hadn't wasted my time reading.
It isn't inherently bad by any means but it turns out it's a useful quality metric in my personal experience.
I'm bad with spread sheets so maybe this is trivial but having an llm tell me how to connect my sheet to whatever data I'm using at the moment and it coming up with a link or sql query or both has allowed me to quickly pull in data where I'd normally eyeball it and move on or worst case do it partially manually if really important.
It's like one off scripts in a sense? I'm not doing complex formulas I just need to know how I can pull data into a sheet and then I'll bucketize or graph it myself.
Again probably because I'm not the most adept user but it has definitely been a positive use case for me.
I'd assume the app / technology Microsoft is pushing over all else is more worth a bug bounty than say Visio so maybe more accurate to ask are there any major companies with their new key product that don't have bug bounties?
Happy to be wrong and put my foot in my mouth though I've misunderstood folks before :)
Will be interesting to see if / when enforcement happens given management is currently being pushed to encourage AI use