I've found that clarity is likely the most important aspect of success in general. Clarity in communication, for example, makes people feel invovled, heard, aligned. Cleverness is lots of acronyms and fancy phrases like vis-a-vis instead of just writing out what you mean so everyone can easily understand.
Twitter/X: I'm smart? Seriously? That's not how I think of it at all.
I mean, yes, there are some people trying to use Twitter to show that they're smart. But my impression is that the overall vibe of it is trying to show that you're influential. People follow you. They retweet your posts. That's the "success metric".
Note well: I'm not actually on Twitter. This is my impression from outside.
These camera's are on all 3 egress routes from our home. I asked our local sheriff's department if they could use these to enforce state-wide curfews and after hemming and hawing they admitted "if it was a crime than in theory, yes".
Drone, paint can, mud, or a very heavy hat. Until they're made too expensive to maintain, they'll stay in business selling your movements to data brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers to mine for all time for any reason at all.
Been thinking about this lately because I find my writing style is a little bit like annoying slightly sycophantic overly-hyphenated-with-an-emdash-here-and-there LLMs. Since LLMs are trained on the Internet, wouldn't some portion of posts that fall in the middle of the "voice bell curve" always sound like LLMs and thus be open to this critique even when they are 100% human written?
I feel like sometimes I write like an LLM, complete with [bad] self-deprecating humor, overly-explained points because I like first principals, random soliloquies, etc. Makes me worry that I'll try and change my style.
That said, when I do try to get LLMs to write something, I can't stand it, and feel like the OP here.
the future is now where debates about human vs machine will influence our trust and enjoyment! I read the article wondering how much of it was AI generated (new worry!), but also how biased it was based on the authors startup business interest (old worry!), and concluded that if I learned something about the panel it was worth the 5 minutes. Or maybe 2 minutes if an AI summarized it.
Yes Mark is the Chief Architect with vast responsibility, in addition is Chief Language Architect Brian Goetz [1] and the OpenJDK Amber Project members [2][3].
I guess the vast majority of images have the palms the other way, that this biases the output. It's like how we misinterpret images to generate optical illusions, because we're expecting valid 3D structures (Escher's staircases, say).
https://www.youtube.com/RealCoffeeWithScottAdams
https://scottadams.locals.com/landing/video
reply