Winning isn't what makes you feel good. Growth makes you feel good. Sometimes they are the same thing. When you achieve something for the first time, it's growth. You've reached a new level. The win feels satisfying. But when you do it for the tenth time (or the hundredth time), it can feel stale. You're still winning, but you're not necessarily growing. The secret is not to worry about winning, but rather to focus on growing. And the most straightforward way to grow is to learn something. If you're ever feeling stuck, go learn something new. Read, write, think, learn, repeat. When you're lea…
Claude's performative "this request was sooo dangerous that we downgraded to Opus" is wearing me down I ask it straightfoward questions, nothing shady, nothing complicated, and it tells me it's too dangerous for Fable. What BS.
AI is grown more than designed - it is, to first degree, the product of repeating a straightforward optimization step many times on a hard-to-imagine amount of compute.
This is not to be complacent about the risks, but it is to urge caution when assuming that shifting the perceptions of other societies will ever be straightforward.
I think it is making it more popular. I don't know if it'll make it go mainstream, but it's definitely making it a lot more popular. It's bringing it from maybe like 0.1% to 0.3% which is huge.
A good book sweeps a corner of your brain. Clears out a stale assumption. Disturbs the ecosystem of old ideas you've been letting accumulate rent-free.
It was just better than all the competition. It was faster. It was smaller. Um it was more interactive and it was also cheaper. So, it was like 10 times better at a tenth of the price of the of the competition, right?
And not only that, but like humans were already a bit of a bottleneck in the review process. Now it can be worse because things that we fairly straightforward changes that some companies had automation around reviewing, they've removed that reviewing because if AI is involved and they're worried about the verifiability or the reliability of the code.
probably 50% of the time, I would advise to a client, take 10 to 20% of your marketing budget and spend it on upgrading the call center. Pay the people too much. Get the best practitioners.
It's like something around 10% give or take three or four percent of people depending on the survey are using this say they're using this every day. Another sort of 15 to 20% of people say they're using it every week.
Now that we have the answers, it all looks very obvious, and mostly straightforward.
Their words now
I should have been pointing out red flags starting back at WWDC last year, and I am embarrassed and sorry that I didn’t see what should have been very clear to me from the start.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.