yep. the comments are for folks who have never tried to read cobol before, which is probably 99% of people looking at the project. this way they can understand a familiar idea expressed in a language that is probably wildly different from what theyre used to.
i helped Chris Callison-Burch design a class at upenn, called interactive fiction, which is a similar context to what Simon suggested. the real magic is that it reframes hallucinations as creative story telling. the usecase is SUPER fun if you imagine the LLM as a dungeon master telling a story that gets expanded over time.
the framework he and I built kept track of the game state over time and allowed saving and loading games as json. we could then send the full json to an LLM as part of the prompts to get it to react. the most neat part, imo, was when we realized we could have the LLM generate text for parts of the story, then analyze what it said to detect any items, locations, or characters not jn the game state, and then have it create json representations of the hallucinated objects that could be inserted into the game states. that sealed the deal for using hallucinations as creative story telling inside the context of a game.
i wasnt officially part of upenn at the time, so my name isnt listed on the site, but we wrote a paper about some of the things we did, such as this one, and you'll see me listed there https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~ccb/publications/dagger.pdf
he was vocal about his opposition to intrusive ads in particular. he'd say "You’re either the customer or you’re the product." he believed users paid a premium for apple products and that they should not be subjected to compromises with advertising.
iAd was something that happened right at the end of his life because devs were putting ads in apple apps anyway and he wanted to control how that was done.
this is meant to add context to what bluedevilzn said, btw. it is not a refutation.
Jobs hated ads. You're right that he never wouldve done what Apple is doing now.
Cook needs to stop listening to investors, like Warren Buffett, because he's letting them wreck Apple's integrity for the sake of making a buck. Apple just isnt user focused like they used to be and it's crappy.
depending on what you're using the synthetic data for, it is sometimes called distillation. here is a robust example from some upenn students: https://datadreamer.dev/
Prior to LLMs, it was amusing to consider how ML folks and software folks would talk passed each other. It was amusing because both sides were great at what they do, neither side understood the other side, and they had to work together anyway.
After LLMs, we now have lots of ML folks talking about the future of software, so ething previously established to be so outside their expertise that communication with software engineers was an amusing challenge.
So I must ask, are ML folks actually qualified to know the future of software engineering? Shouldnt we be listening to software engineers instead?
Apple's paper said a bunch of folks with weird predictions are wrong and so obviously lots of bad information will emerge in response. Who says what matters more now than it used to.
for example IT IS YELLING AT US THE WHOLE TIME