Time isn’t money, money is time.
Money that doesn’t need to be spent is freedom of time.
4,919 karma · joined September 23, 2011
Happy to chat about interests: reachj45 a.t g-m-a-i-l d.o.t c-o-m
Money that doesn’t need to be spent is freedom of time.
It looked like an office desk phone but instead of Ethernet, a SIM card goes only. Some came with a cordless handset with it too. seeing
The more people see AI is still just software (albeit a different kind), the more they will remember to instead start with where/how it works.
ChatGPT and Claude are differently operating and behaving products in the same space.
One is a little better/ different at considering the web, and the other is a juggernaut at sentences and reading in between / connecting the lines.
I'm also pretty proud, first flagged post ever for saying the obvious that they're two different companies.
They have different approaches to the tools they're providing. That fits people differently.
After I read the same I thought, ok, that's what _they_ wanted to do.
Me? I'd love to see what could be rewritten to be 100% future proofed for as many years as possible. But see what that did? I have to share, and see if anyone else already thought of this (I doubt I'm the first ever to have this thought), and maybe, I'll be lucky enough to benefit from someone exploring it already, before I decide to put on a jedi robe and wave my hands to use the force to move AI around.
Thank you to the developer and maintainer
For what it’s worth I had to force Claude early in to use pico and not ever generate react or ornate tailwind.
Pico is extraordinary for standalone tools where ai can’t let complexity build out of control.
Maybe there’s other options but pico is what got it done, and vanilla LLMs has a hard time keeping something this simple and elegant and flexible.
Often when we use a search engine, we're trying to piece together something that might be across multiple links, or a single link
Google ranked the best results, not the most commonly occurring ones.
AI is by default returning the highest statistical percentage of what it thinks you are looking for in a response, which may or may not be a search result.
A fun example is having the AI run a search, and comparing it to perplexity, or even gemini a little. OpenAI is improving, and Claude is pretty consistently not made for comprehensive search.
Google's organic search results are ranked by quality (including how many people click on them).
AI, generally thinks the best result is what's most common, or average, resulting in decent results, but not the best for what you're looking for.
We notice it when we're looking for a level of specificity google can hit, compared to an ai model. It's why Google's AI search can hit a bit differen too.
The example that comes to top of mind is a search that is not made for search rarely can compare to something as well as Perplexity.
Instacart has it's own unique offerings and propositions, hopefully those don't dissapear, they were invaluable during the pandemic.
It's totally wild that there isn't an interactive script/check already built to test, detect, and run the solution on all fronts.
Imagine the backwards compatibility.
Most technologies seemed doom and gloom, and also have absorbed existing jobs for new ones, and current LLMs as AI is a bigger sponge than usual.
That's a pretty risky way to build blind spots and it's worth learning more about this.
When you make the product work with your words, you're doing the training and improvements to get it to that line as a pattern which then lets models "improve" from your corrections.
A determination of it has to be made some way beyond looking for frustrated or angry keywords.
If there was direct transparency regarding this it would be great vs digging into it on our own.