Well you could say that every educated country is far better informed about the US than vice versa.

You could even say that many foreigners are better informed about the US than US citizens are about the US, but that's not a high bar... I mean, 38% still approve of the current administration so that's already over one in three who don't understand the basic functioning of government or the economy.

I think foreigners tend to be better informed than the locals wherever you go.

As a baseline, they have experience living in about twice as many countries as the locals. They picked up their lives, often learned a second language, and established a home with minimal social support. They tend to be highly motivated people.

In many cases, they know more about the country than the locals do because they've traveled all over said country while the locals never left their home town.

edit: I just realized this might be confusing. By "foreigner" I mean someone who is from a place other than where they currently live. I'm not referring to people who only know about a country through hearsay.

Yeah, it took me a moment to clue in, but I think maybe "expat" is the more common term there.

In any case, I think it also applies to some degree to people who live outside the US just purely based on media diet. We all see clips of CNN and MSNBC and Fox on YouTube, but a person elsewhere will have the additional perspective of BBC, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, The Guardian, etc.

I think you've never read real investigative journalism before

We live in an era where people lack the ability to read and digest written content and rely on someone speaking to them about it instead.

It's a step beyond that. Where people who only consume the easily digestible content don't believe there is a source to any of it

But it has electrolytes!

Imagine claiming that video has not historically been a medium of investigative journalism.

If your takeaway from my comment was "this guy thinks investigative journalism must be written" I would suggest reading the comment again.

What do you mean "backed by"

Alternatively, think about asking the women in your life what they want

Of course. I think that communication is the key to a successful relationship.

However Henry Ford has a well known quote about what people think they want vs what they really want. For that matter, think about how you would answer a question about what you want, vs what you really value to experience in a relationship.

While this is generally good advice, it only works if you have women you're close with, at that level, already. If the only women you know are work colleagues, you can't go around asking them for advice on dating (depends on your relationship with them of course, but usually, not work appropriate).

Perhaps that is part of the problem. Talking to women outside of romantic interest might be a good first step

Yes, but that's not useful advice to someone who currently has none.

My point being, maybe other things are foundational to building a romantic life upon. Not saying it is a must but building friendships with all sorts of people will generally help with many aspects of life

What's protecting smaller online spaces from AI?

Nothing is bulletproof, but more hands-on moderation tends to be better at making pragmatic judgement calls when someone is being disruptive without breaking the letter of the law, or breaks the rules in ways that take non-trivial effort to prove. That approach can only scale so far though.

Essentially, gatekeeping. Places that are hard to access without the knowledge or special software, places that are invite-only, places that need special hardware...

Or places with a terminally uncool reputation. I'm still on Tumblr, and it's actually quite nice these days, mostly because "everyone knows" that Tumblr is passé, so all the clout-chasers, spammers and angry political discoursers abandoned it. It's nice living, under the radar.

Another important factor is whether the place is monetizable. Places where you can't make money are less likely to be infested with AI.

Or a place that can influence a captive audience. Bots have been known to play a part in convincing people of one thing over another via the comments section. No direct money to be made there but shifting opinions can lead to sales, eventually. Or prevent sales for your competitors.

Not enough financial upside for it to be worth the trouble.

The fact it's text only means we only get AI text and not images, I suppose. lmao.

Economics. Slop will only live where there's enough eyeballs and ad revenue to earn a profit from it

What do you think courts are for?

> even those who lose the jobs should benefit overall

Do you have a further explanation on this?

I don't think you actually watched the video? Nearly all of the criticism is about the myth creation around him with a short bit at the end mostly praising him as a person

Couldn't you just blame any business non-decision on fear of regulation?

"We were prevented from building a proper Windows phone because we already had such large market share on desktop, and already had an anti-trust against us so our hands were tied"

It's just an argument that creates a Kafka trap

You double check every university lecture you've been apart of?

Did you just sit there in class and then never do anything with what you learned afterwards? That certainly isn't how I approached university.

Doing something with the knowledge given in a lecture is very distinct from fact checking it

I'd say it's a subset of fact checking it. You can check facts without doing anything else, but doing something with the knowledge is inherently checking it. If the lecture presents some programming technique, and I implement it, I'll find out pretty quickly if it's wrong.

That's what is called "studying" or "reading a textbook", isn't it?

Uhm no? Reading a textbook is obviously not the same as fact checking a textbook.

Parent was writing about a university LECTURE which is different from a TEXTBOOK (which is different from primary sources), so yeah, consulting other sources is checking the facts.

Oh I see what you're saying. It was slightly ambiguous.

But in any case, I didn't read a single textbook at uni; it was all lecture notes provided by the lecturers (fill-in-the-gaps actually which worked waaaay better than you'd think). So the answer is still no - I didn't fact check them and I didn't need to because they didn't wildly hallucinate like AI does.

The real answer is:

You should have a mental model about how the world works and the fundamental rules of the context where you're operating. Even though you might not know something, you eventually develop an intuition of what makes sense and what doesn't. And yes, that applies even to "university lectures" since a lot of professors make mistakes/are wrong plenty of times.

Taking an LLM's output at face value would be dumb, yes. But it would be equally dumb to take only what's written on a book at face value, or a YouTube video, or anyone you listen to. You have to dig in, you have to do the homework.

LLMs make it much easier for you to do this homework. Sure, they still make mistakes, but they get you 90% of the way in minutes(!) and almost for free.

I don't think it's (necessarily) equally dumb. Maybe if comparing LLM output to a book chosen at random. But I would feel much safer taking a passage from Knuth at face value than a comparable LLM passage on algorithms.