Usually A/B testing is just on the surface, and when you actually subscribe you get the "better" terms of the possible options.
Like, they're just advertising different terms to test how many people would still click on it and very likely start the subscription process, but after they click they go back to the usual terms. Changing the whole payment flow, account models and permissions in their backend just for a quick test is usually too much work.
But yes, basically, if you're B and not A, and B has objectively worse terms than A, then you're just unlucky. But this is the essence of A/B tests. They are done by basically every company everytime, because it's the most straightforward and simple way to test new terms or designs.
While I feel the same way, this is nothing new at all. Basically every company does this and it's a totally normal way to test new profit models. Has been done for decades. People acting surprised here really need to get on with reality.
I mean, this is why they do A/B testing. This way of testing stuff is not new at all, people who act genuinely surprised need to do a reality check. Companies want to maximize profit. They do this by testing what creates the biggest profit. A/B Testing is one of the ways to do this, and it has been used for decades in precisely this way.
No one is claiming that every sentence LLMs are producing are literal copies of other sentences. Tokens are not even constrained to words but consist of smaller slices, comparable to syllables. Which even makes new words totally possible.
New sentences, words, or whatever is entirely possible, and yes, repeating a string (especially if you prompt it) is entirely possible, and not surprising at all. But all that comes from trained data, predicting the most probably next "syllable". It will never leave that realm, because it's not able to. It's like approaching an Italian who has never learned or heard any other language to speak French. It can't.
It feels like you're purposefully ignoring the logical points OP gives and you just really really want to anthropomorphize AlphaGo and make us appreciate how smart it (should I say he/she?) is ... while no one is even criticising the model's capabilities, but analyzing it.
> Especially if that "thing" has never been analyzed before and there's no LLM-trained data on it.
This is the crucial part of the comment. LLMs are not able to solve stuff that hasn't been solve in that exact or a very similar way already, because they are prediction machines trained on existing data. It is very able to spot outliers where they have been found by humans before, though, which is important, and is what you've been seeing.
The number is small in comparison to the whole humanity, yes, but this is not at all what it's about in this post. Did you read the article?
Instead, it actually is literally about each individual's immediate sphere, which, as you correctly point out, is where it matters. Having 5 true friends in a world with 100 people or in a world with 1 billion people doesn't change anything.
> One needs a few minutes of your time and gets you feeling really good at the end of the process
Ah yes, and after the intercourse the child spawns, I remember. And then it just leaves and goes somewhere and starts it's own life. No pain, work, food, time or whatever involved. Just having sex and feeling good.
> years of effort, toil and sweat
Would be a shame if that would be needed to produce a human being.
But IIRC this is the same on Windows and other OSes, no? Like, I'd argue that it's the default behavior then. Also, I think it should be like that.
And yes to switch between windows of the same application it's Cmd+Shift+´. Not the most intuitive, but I feel it should not be combined, because that would mess up the sequence massively. If I want to switch Terminal windows, I don't want to do Cmd+Tab and then manually look through all 15 window icons to select.
Like, IMO the status quo is perfect. Sure, you gotta get used to Cmd+Shift+´, but try to do it for a week, and then it's perfectly natural.
It does not work as long as you stay strongly intertwined with the capitalist complex, correct. But I'd argue that in basically every region of the world, you have the choice. It may be harder or easier, but you have it.
Yes, if you try to force a material value on everything, you will get a material value.
I would pay a shit ton to have loving and supporting friends, but this is not how it works. Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support.
This works for "good" neighborhoods if you replace "good" with "low-crime", as people with a higher income tend to do less crimes, if we count out tax evasion and other anti-society behaviours.
But this is not what it's about. You reap what you sow. You try to increase your value for people to like you and want to be friends with you? This can work, but the price for it is (1) purely extrinsical motivation which more often then not does leave you feel empty and (2) friends who will leave you as soon as your worth decreases, e.g. with age or illness, or if a different person with more value comes around and offers their friendship.
I'd rather have my family and 1-2 close friends, and literally no one else, instead of 100 close friends that will vanish as soon as I am not able to bring anything to the table anymore, which will inevitably happen for everyone.
> Apart from a few, friends and family who care about you can be counted on one hand as well.
It's not about the quantity but about the quality of friendships and human connection. I couldn't care less about the number of my friends. I do care a lot though about the connection to them.
I feel like that article contradicts the meaning of OPs article in almost every way.
The Cracked article comes from a very neoliberal, self-optimization hustle-grind culture: work on yourself so you're worth more for others: an incredibly, if not exclusively, extrinsic motivation. While OPs article seems more focused on your internal presence, your relationships and being with people, not for people. Cracked says to work hard and complain less, produce more so your skillset is more worthy to other people. OPs article says to practice presence and true connection.
The only thing I can find that connects both is that they have a mindset of anti-passivity, but that's all.
Ahh, edit: thought you replied directly to OP, that's why I thought you meant that the Cracked article is similar to OPs article. Sorry!
I mean to be fair, (1) there are replacements, AltTab and Switcher for example, and (2) why replace ot touch something that isn't broken? Cmd+Tab is supposed to switch to the next open window, and it does exactly that.
I resonate with OP a lot, and in my opinion, it's not about the code quality. It's about the effort that was put in, like in each LOC. I can't quite put it in words, but, like, the art comparison works quite well. If someone generates a painting with Gemini, it makes it somewhat heartless. It may still be good and bring the project forward (in case of this PR), but it lost every emotional value.
I would probably never be able to review this kind of code in open source projects without any financial compensation, because of that reason. Not because I don't like LLMs, not use LLMs, or think their code is of bad quality. But, while without LLMs I know there was a person who sat down and wrote all this in painstaking work, now I know that he or she barely steered a robot that wrote it. It may still be good work, and the steering and prompting is still work and requires skill, but for me I would not feel any emotional value in this code, and it would make it A LOT harder to gather motivation to review it. Interestingly, when I think about it, I realize that I would inherently have motivation to find out how the developer prompted the agent.
Like, you know, when I see a wooden statue of which I know it was designed and carved by someone in months of work, I could appreciate every single edge of the wood much more than if there's a statue that was designed by someone but carved by some kind of wooden CNC machine. It may be same statue and the same or even better quality, and it was still skillful work, but I lose my connection to it.
Can't quite pinpoint it, but for me, it seems, the human aspect is really important here, at least when it's about passion and motivation.
Maybe that made some sense, idk. I just wrote out of my ass.
TIL that when I do anything that makes society label me as a "developer", I am not allowed to enjoy it, or feel about it in any way, as it's now a job, entirely neutral in nature, and I gotta do it, whether I hate or enjoy it - no attached emotions allowed.
The biggest problem of all this crappy development in Windows and macOS is that they just threw customization out of the window.
Remember Windows 98, when you could actually just right click on the Desktop and select your own colors for basically everything in the UI.
With each Windows it got less, until in Vista and 7 only like 10% remained. This continues to get less.
This is pushing AI down my throat (+ privacy, but IMO Apple is at least okay-ish in this regard) is my main reason why my next laptop will not run macOS. Maybe Asahi Linux will finally support Thunderbolt, but maybe I'll just switch to a Framework. I'm just happy that I stayed on 15.7.5 until now. As soon as this gets no updates anymore, I'm gone.
While I feel so too, I do actually think that objectively Catalina is a UX-side step up. Current displays have 16:9 or even 3:2. Putting less things in the top bar and more stuff in the sidebar, especially in something like Pages where your content does not even fill half of your display horizontally, I think it makes sense.
Like, they're just advertising different terms to test how many people would still click on it and very likely start the subscription process, but after they click they go back to the usual terms. Changing the whole payment flow, account models and permissions in their backend just for a quick test is usually too much work.
But yes, basically, if you're B and not A, and B has objectively worse terms than A, then you're just unlucky. But this is the essence of A/B tests. They are done by basically every company everytime, because it's the most straightforward and simple way to test new terms or designs.