Maybe not in your country? Here in the UK I see https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-amazon-kids-tab... and https://www.amazon.com/b?node=221942402011 which includes the phrase "One for ages 3-5".
644 karma · joined February 2, 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(Clearfield_and_Tilcs...
I certainly agree that the author should disclose the use of an AI, how much is human vs silicon, and clarify which ideas are his own and which are not. I've written to him to ask about that.
Interestingly, the text has a number of AI-like writing artifacts, e.g. frequent use of the pattern "The problem isn't X. The problem is Y." Unlike much of the typical slop I see, I read it to the end and found it insightful.
I think that's because the author worked with an AI exactly as he advocates, providing the deep thinking and leaving some of the routine exposition to the bot.
Rural areas are trivially easy. May not be anything to do about that.
how about labelling famous locations like Times Square or the Louvre?
Anomaly is misspelt on home page.
I think the same is true for tech books but I don't know as I haven't written one.
A novel or other fiction is the opposite; there you do have to write the whole thing first.
1. "Normal" people with a level of glutamate receptors at 10, say, on a scale I'm inventing for this example
2. "Autistic" (according to the DSM) people with a level of, say, 5, who are hindered by the effects of being at this level
3. "A little bit autistic" people at a level of, say, 8, who aren't hindered and don't meet the DSM criteria, but in fact actually benefit from the effects of being at this level
Some "normals" might then want to inhibit their glutamate receptors somewhat to get the benefits of being at an 8 or a 9 on my made-up scale.
Why not consider the opposite, that the most beneficial quantity of glutamate receptors could be somewhere below the typical amount? If that were true, then we could try to help others reduce their glutamate receptor level to become healthier and more successful (and a little more autistic).
If we found, say, an association between a lower level of neurological characteristic X and concert-level piano skill, then those who aspire to play that instrument at an elite level might try to decrease X. The fact that most of us are rubbish piano players would not be evidence that lower levels of X are harmful, but very much the opposite.
Typically, postings that gain traction have many many reposts and though some may be deleted, there's a long tail of reverberation left behind. I can't find that at all here.
I wonder if the hoaxer just emailed it to Network Rail directly?
That's why I advocate using feature flags and beta labels and supervised user research to get feedback. Do those methods work for you, so you can opt in?
Good point that LLMs tend to rewrite unless corrected. I have heard (but not tested myself!) that if you tell them to apply a series of small changes they stay on track better. Fowler's list would probably be a good starting place.
I hear from my clients (but have not verified myself!) that LLMs perform much better with a series of tiny, atomic changes like Replace Magic Literal, Pull Up Field, and Combine Functions Into Transform.
[1] https://martinfowler.com/books/refactoring.html [2] https://martinfowler.com/bliki/OpportunisticRefactoring.html [3] https://refactoring.com/catalog/
As others point out, the actual bodycam footage will be definitively probative for the events it records. But there are plenty of cases where the report itself leads to later actions that may be tortious or criminal, and finding out who's to blame for the exact wording used is highly relevant.
Example: AI incorrectly reports that during A's arrest, A made incriminating allegations about B. Based on the report, the police get a warrant and search B's house. When it turns out B is innocent, B sues the department, and when the report turns up during discovery, we're off to the circus.
Sobering thought: centaur tournaments at the top level are no more. That's because the computers got so good that the human half of the beast no longer added any meaningful value.