Not prevent, just not provide very responsive feedback, right?
I don't know, I understand the principle, but I don't see how you can determine the value of a principle outside of a specific context.
Even for accessibility, we can't target every context in the name of being accessible. We still have to pick which contexts of inaccessibility we'll need to support with more attention.
The strongest signal you can give people now is offering personal interaction. It's expensive to go meet someone or ask someone if you can call them.
I wrote about this from the perspective of someone with no connections [0] but I think even if you're well connected, reaching out to people from other networks is a useful way to gain access to great thinking, information, and opportunity.
1. Incredible! Can I make an unsolicited ask? If you had industry specific templates for standardized PDFs it would be easier for me to send Parsewise to the insurance companies I'd worked for. Something similar to https://www.useanvil.com/forms/?type=pdf-templates but with your clean, semantic data model.
2. Can I ask how? When I was building something like this, I realized there's an element of burning tokens for correctness. Meaning, splitting things into small units and small processes, each using a separate LLM output to be later combined. For a 1k page document, what kind of token usage do you see?
Your argument hinges on deciding what "works" means.
You're saying it "works" for some people but maybe not in a way or scale that was originally intended for it to "work".
But isn't that how all learning in a complex system takes place? Doesn't mean you need to rush to cancel something?
What's wrong in saying it doesn't do what we thought it would but it does do something useful? Maybe adjust further investment based on results obtained. Ignore sunk cost.
That's fine if they're benefiting from the status quo, that decision making should be left to those in-context.
The political experiments should be chosen and driven by small units in order to be safely contained.
Planning shouldn't be a top-down activity, strategy should be. Meaning , the bounds for decisions and the rules of play must be centrally determined, but not the experiments themselves.
I don't completely follow the last bit of your comment. It sounds like you agree that a centralized planner doesn't have enough context to make system wide decisions. Am I right?
I've been thinking about this too: why aren't we able to run safe political experiments?
We're missing guardrails to allow safe experimentation and we're missing institutions to provide affordances.
I think the difficult bit is figuring out how to seperate the goodness of centralized decision shaping and the badness of centralized power accumulation.
Does this also extract semantic relationships and data dependencies between fields?
In the past I'd built an internal tool that transforms insurance PDFs to structured data. I wanted to extract explicit data dependencies between fields to perform validation.
Insurance forms can sometimes have 30-40 pages and they can have fields on page 40 that depend on fields on page 4 with a few nested if conditions. Would Parsewise be able to extract those relationships?
Can you simplify how form dynamism works? I skimmed the docs and saw 'states', but it didn't immediately click how it works.
Do we build a tree of rules outside of the components? Are states attached to each component, bottoms-up, and then the form tree is managed by the library?
For more advanced students, those with preconceived ideas, teachers use a refutational style of teaching. It's not the same as argumentation because the goal is to find an appropriate bridge from one model (the preconceived, naive model) to another model (the one being taught). It works by pointing out a fascinating explanatory limitation in the naive model and then showing the students how the better model deals with said limitations.
The author's argument is hilariously wrong because we've been doing something for thousands of years: teaching.
And it works, to some degree.
And how do teachers teach? They don't start by trying to argue or by trying to prove students wrong. They teach by showing what's fascinating.
Taking the time to show people what's fascinating, what's perplexing, where the tension lies, and how it's resolved, is teaching.
Argument construction in social contexts is ironically ego-driven. Demonstrating something interesting, on the other hand, means asking yourself what what they would find interesting about what you want to tell them.