I think honestly they shied away from really clearly saying this was the end until a couple of hours before he died when really I believe it was clear at least a few days out. For some reason through their communication, bouncing between different doctors and clearly some overwhelming emotions on our part, we thought he had a chance of coming back from the brink so made some decisions in his behalf I wish we hadn’t.
I don’t think you have to be a doctor to come to this conclusion. After therapy I realised that the most traumatic thing that took the longest to get over wasn’t watching my Dad die, it was watching him suffer through futile attempts to prolong his life by a few days in intensive care. I wish the doctors had been clearer with us about his chances of survival, I wish we had been brave/knowledgable enough to accept that it was the end and I vow never to put my loves ones through that when my time comes.
2015 for me too. I wonder if there was some early day over juicing of the attention mechanism that put people off in that year, before they tuned it to reduce churn…
Is this really the way we’re wired after thousands of years of evolution? Even the word broadcast implies something very one way. Pre social media it was very normal to “broadcast” by discussing ideas with friends, family and neighbours, face to face in a civil manner. Good ideas gained traction gradually, bad ideas didn’t get traction because the extremists were too far apart. A nice natural protection against extremes.
I am having implement some suggestions from one of these tools on our developer portal right now from a tool marketing has bought to review our presence in model results. What’s more these “results” are presented to me processed by another model in prose. I can’t quite shake the feeling I’m implementing changes suggested by a stochastic model based on a limited set of search’s on other stochastic models. So many layers of probability, how on earth can it be trusted!
Define better. Faster to literally write the code - LLM. Deeper understanding of how it works - write yourself. Less skill atrophy - write yourself. More fun - write yourself. You can argue all these points and they’ll be different for everyone, but my feeling is that everything I listed in the original comment are clear additives to my process/learning.
Don’t use it for coding. Well at least using it for everything around coding rather than just coding itself was my aha moment, I realised I could understand new codebases way faster, brainstorm, sense check ideas draft better thought out arguments to my perspective and generally ask stupid questions. All of which has significantly increased my learning as a developer. Using it for coding itself is another matter.
Totally agree. Setting the tone is so important. It’s so bad it’s “illegal” is a lot more convincing than saying to your kid, “well the research shows…”
> they’ll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family.
Cmon, if you’re trying to make the case for how essential social media is for children under the age of 16, please find some better examples. As if there are no other sources of educational content online than YouTube and anyone who has left Facebook knows the last two points are simply not true. This is so weak from the EFF.
Anyone in Europe or UK should be quaking in their boots at this news. For a long time the American administration has had a kill switch on most of our defence tech, this is an early warning signal that as AI adoption spreads, America will have a kill switch on our economy as well. It’s time to wake up.
I also can't stand the privacy violation of CSS. But
> Child safety looks like well-funded education, robust social services, and meaningful guardrails on the very AI technologies and platforms the current government is eagerly courting.
is such a weak, unrealistic, slow and idealistic solution to the real suffering of children. I was hoping this thread might offer up some better alternatives.
All the criticism the UK and European countries get from American tech billionaires for censorship…then…this. No one anywhere could argue this post is some sort of hate speech to even mildly cover their arses.
> It is the knowledge they carry. How the business actually operates. Where the edge cases live. Why certain decisions get made the way they do. What customers really mean when they complain about a specific issue. The context that never makes it into a process document because it does not need to — because the right person already knows.
I get this is about the immediate firing of people and losing knowledge quickly but there’s no reason this this knowledge can’t be captured actively and passively over the next year or so now there’s a massive incentive to do so. In fact using AI to capture this knowledge is a huge opportunity tons of startups are working on.