This feels more nuanced than you are giving it credit for? Much of the training data that was available has been withdrawn, atleast for OpenAI we know that much of the training data was garnered in less-than above the board methods
Most people would argue that Stadia would have many. Many people loved Google Reader. There are numerous examples of things that were great and were killed, because they hadn't monetized enough or "fast enough", and when you are chasing results on a quarterly basis, you can't always get things that will generate tremendous value with more time.
I think this is misleading as a few other folks say -- otherwise you'd expect Visa/Mastercard stock to drop dramatically at losing that many folks in a single announcement.
It seems like a good path forward is to somewhat try to replicate the idea of "once you can do it yourself, feel free to use it going forward" (knowing how various calculator operations work before you let it do it for you).
I'm curious if we instead gave students an AI tool, but one that would intentionally throw in wrong things that the student had to catch. Instead of the student using LLMs, they would have one paid for by the school.
This is more brainstorming then a well thought-out idea, but I generally think "opposing AI" is doomed to fail. If we follow a montessori approach, kids are naturally inclined to want to learn thing, if students are trying to lie/cheat, we've already failed them by turning off their natural curiosity for something else.
This is not necessarily true. Hypothetical, if most breakthroughs are coming from PHDs and they aren't making any PHDs, then that pool is not necessarily larger.
I recently interviewed for Anthropic, 6 rounds, recruiter was great, said they were putting together an offer letter. I met one of the managers, then another came back from vacation... and then they decided not to give me an offer.
I asked for feedback, and the recruiter sounded frustrated (about the internal process), because they had a moving bar on what was wanted from the hiring managers. I know I hadn't completely aced one of the interviews (they had me do a second one), and apparently they thought it was good enough on initial review, but when coming back to review it again it was not good enough.
It seems like they are going through growing pains as a company.
I work a lot with smaller investors, in real estate, private money lending, etc. It's sometimes hard to do due diligence on someone, and after having a couple bad deals and realize over 30 people were scammed, I wished there was a simple review site where you could see someone's past reviews.
Site is 80% there, hoping to enter beta in the next month.
I like this idea a lot -- feels like there's a lot of room to grow here. Do you have any sort of historical price tracking/alerting?
And/or also curious if there is a way to enter in a list of items I want and for it to calculate which store - in aggregate - is the cheapest.
For instance, people often tell me Costco is much cheaper than alternatives, and for me to compare I have to compile my shopping cart in multiple stores to compare.
I read ~4 books a month via Audible, and tend not to find the time to add to Goodreads (maybe there's an auto connection I'm missing). I love the idea of systems like this (your design is beautiful) but there's no way I'm going to try to reimport all my ratings for 300+ books.
Is there anyway to sync with Audible? Even if it's a hacky chrome extension reading off the audible website?