Then I would remove anything that would require manual review.
A while back someone built a similar “automated” tool to summarize books and the summaries were wildly inaccurate.
I noticed your site also promotes “book summaries”.
That seems an area rife for misinformation without extensive work in manual review; ie, reading the books, and listening to the “summaries” critically.
> Here the result was mildly disappointing: Essentially the model proposed the same strategy that was already identified in the most recent work on the problem (and which I restated in the blog post
This was my concern when the first post hit HN.
Tao seemed excited that “this time around” the “new” model proposed Cramer’s Theorem:
> This time around, Cramer's theorem was identified and a perfectly satisfactory answer was given.
All I could think was, well of course it did now, it has likely since been trained on Tao’s blog posts talking about its failure to suggest Cramers Theorem.
I’m unsure why Tao is allowing himself to be an advertisement for this company and its paid product.
> Our goal is to produce at least a million titles by the end of this year across 100+ categories.
Honest question, why?
I listened to the aging gracefully “standup”.
It starts with “hey you beautiful bastards” because I guess that is what comedians do? Then it goes on a rant about what it’s like to be a “washed up 35 year old comedian”.
I deploy to pared down bare metal, but I use containerization for development, both local and otherwise, for me and contributors.
So much easier than trying to get a local machine to be set up identically to a myriad of servers running multiple projects with their idiosyncratic needs.
I like developing on my Qubes daily driver so I can easily spin up a server imitating vm, but if I’m getting your help, especially without paying you, then I want development for you to be as seamless as possible whatever your personal preferred setup.
A while back someone built a similar “automated” tool to summarize books and the summaries were wildly inaccurate.
I noticed your site also promotes “book summaries”.
That seems an area rife for misinformation without extensive work in manual review; ie, reading the books, and listening to the “summaries” critically.