Reminds me of when I asked Gemini how to do some stuff in Google Docs App Script, and it just hallucinated the capability and code to make it work. Turns out what I wanted to do isn't supported at all.
I feel like we aren't properly using AI in products yet.
I asked about a nieche json library for c. It apparently wasn't in the training data so it just invented how it feels like a json library would work.
Ive also had alot of issues with cmake that it just invents syntax and functions. Every new question has to be made in a new chat context to clear the context poisoning.
Its the things that lack good docs i want to ask about. But that's where its most likley to fail.
Yet Google raised my workspace subscription cost by 25% last night because our current agreement is suddenly unworthy of all the new “ai value” they’ve added… value I didn’t even know existed until I started paying for it. I don’t even want to know what isis supposed to be referencing… I just want to dump it asap.
The tool we use for our docs AI answers lets you mine that data for feature requests. It generates a report of what it didn't have answers for and summarizes them as potential feature gaps. (Or at least what it is aware it didn't have answers for).
People seem more willing to ask an AI about certain things then be judged by asking the same question of a human, so in that regard it does seem to surface slightly different feature requests then we hear when talking to customers directly.
We use inkeep.com (not affiliated, just a customer).
> We use inkeep.com (not affiliated, just a customer).
And what do you pay? It's crazy that none of these AI CSRs have public pricing. There should just be monthly subscription tiers, which include some number of queries, and a cost per query beyond that.
I’ve found LLMs (or at least everyone I’ve tried this on) will always assume the customer is correct and thus even if they’re flat out wrong, the LLM will make up some bullshit to confirm the costumer is still correct.
It’s great when you’re looking to do creative stuff. But terrible when you’re looking to confirm the correctness of an approach or asking for support on something that you weren’t even aware of its nonexistence.
The main point was decreasing the transfer time - if rsync -z makes it short enough, it doesn't matter if the indices are there or not, and you also skip the step of re-creating the DB from the text file.
The point of the article is that it does matter if the indices are there. And indices generally don't compress very well anyways. What compresses well are usually things like human-readable text fields or booleans/enums.
RFK never said or implied that all people with autism are non-functional in important areas. It's true that a significant number are, and it's really strange and perhaps cruel to see people trying to erase that. And it doesn't make it less of an issue to address even if some of those people write poetry.
A few months ago, there was an op-ed in the NY Times that said RFK was wrong to say x% of people are diabetics. But RFK mentionned explicitly x% are "diabetics and pre-diabetics" people. While I can't verify if the number is correct, it was obvious the NY Times was misquoting RFK.
I feel like there is a group of people that *deeply* want the autism rates to continue at the rate they are at due to some strange ideation. It's hard to describe what I mean, but the closest thing I can think of is a social contagion or a society wide Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
In some circles, there is social capital to being part of some marginalized identity. The autism spectrum is so wide that it's pretty easy for many highly functional people to slot themselves onto it somehow. Then many of these people make this a core part of their identity and feel a need to "advocate" for other autistic people and autism in general. Once your identity is wrapped up in something, this isn't so different than advocating for gay rights or against racism or something. Of course advocating for what is a debilitating disease for many makes no sense and can actually be cruel.
We don't have a clear cause for autism beyond recognizing that genetics play a role.
We don't even have a clear picture of the scope; one reason rates appear to be increasing is simply that we've gotten better at recognizing symptoms in previously ignored populations. But... We are probably still ignoring symptoms in some significant populations.
It is completely understandable that, as we learn more and the scope of the problem becomes more apparent, folks are alarmed and clamoring for politicians to Do Something.
...it is less apparent that there is anything productive to be done, beyond continued efforts to better understand the situation.
We (as a society) and Kennedy in particular (within his own family), have ample experience with the harms wrought by efforts to Do Something when no effective solution exists.
That doesn't make any sense. The percentage of people with severe autism barely grew, and is loosely correlated to the mother age.
The diagnosis of autism grow, but mostly because a lot more people are diagnosed with autism. I don't like that sentence, but modern autism is more of a social construct than what autism used to be.
'on the spectrum' is probably to me a big lie. I've worked (as a counsellor) with genuine autistic people, non-communicative or not, and frankly if you've learned to mask and to lie on your own, with intent (I did) or naturally (most people do), you shouldn't be considered autistic. Or at least you shouldn't hide behind your diagnostic.
The infamous speech fragment is really close to the likes of Nazi propaganda. An example was giving children homework to calculate how much a disabled person costs society. THAT is extremely cruel, and so was RFK's speech, because there definitely was this undertone present.
Sure, you can edit or misquote many speeches to make them sound like Nazi propaganda, or simply assert they are similar to propaganda, but that itself is also propaganda.
Any suggestions for someone who wants to get started on a similar but less ambitious project, ideally without any soldering? Ie, more software and breadboard-style wiring.
And the question begging of assuming that equality is a desirable goal. We also need to look at the cost of equality (of house sizes?) -- if it requires authoritarian government, theocracy, slavery, subjugation of other tribes, maybe it's not necessarily a goal unto it self? Those other factors at least need to be considered!
And a rule that denies everything blocks all vulnerabilities entirely.
A false positive from a conservative evaluation of a query parameter or header value is one thing, conceivably understandable. A false positive due to the content of a blog post is something else altogether.
This is a strawman, especially if like the parent claims this was improving security for one of the most popular website backends ever.
Rules like this might very well have had incredible positive impact on ten of thousands of websites at the cost of some weird debugging sessions for dozens of programmers (made up numbers obviously).
I have a WAF that blocks everything. It's obviously fundamentally broken, but in terms of product metrics like impact, it's incredible! It stops 100% of attacks!
I guess they could effectively copy Kagi's model at mammoth scale - offering a premium internet browsing experience with a 'personalised assistant'.
Easy to convince at least 10% of the users to sign in to their browser with a verified credit card to 'protect the children', and governments around the world would give you full support.
At that point, would be trivial for them to track browsing habits, and then to start offering personalised assistants which save you time and eventually cost money.
Pretty sure you could save money throuh having a huge botnet of computers to tap into, and a huge amount of data to help cache and standardise common requests.
I feel like we aren't properly using AI in products yet.
reply