My father recently had a stroke, we both have ADHD, his is untreated. Since the stroke, most of his impacts have been cognitive, not muscular and most of his cognitive issues relate to worsening executive functioning across all executive functions, but particularly exacerbating the worst issues attributed to ADHD.
As you would know ADHD is a problem with regulation, not capacity however with this stroke it appears that his capacity has fundamentally changed and is further impacted by the dysregulation.
It's still early, and we haven't seen the specialist yet but I'm taking this hypothesis to them and (if I remember to) will update/edit here with their response.
I was a CAD manager for various multi-disciplinary engineering firms in my early career, I can attest to some of the accounts regarding various CAD systems already mentioned.
One not mentioned that comes to mind is E-tap, used by electrical engineers. Well into the five figure territory once all the various bells and whistles were added.
However the most expensive software I ever saw in the wild was some little known simulation platform for a mathematician running predictive models (it also did this with 3D graphics, so both senses of the term) on mine/rail/port operational scenarios. That was into low six figures a seat and five in annual maintenance.
That's not it at all.
In fact, in most of your stated cases it's the opposite.
If you read the bill and understood governance of the scheme and the technology underpinning it, you would see that it actually addresses some of the very fears you are projecting onto it.
There's a system that already exists in Australia (TDIF) based on OAuth and OIDC, but it's not legislated and lacks regulatory oversight. This uplifts and codifies this to a federal level and adds some additional governance and oversight in a similar way to the Consumer Data Right (CDR).
It's Authentication/Identity. But really it's a federated system of consent where you can allow one authoritative holder of some information about you to transmit it to another. Simple E.g. omitting many details but say some federal government agency (A) wants my driver's licence number. because I use the same identity for both (A) and my state department of transport (B) I can tell (B) it's ok to send it to (A). (A) and (B) are both in the "network" which is governed by a central Register (R) and verifies each to each other so they can securely share data over standardized channels. The central register does not get involved beyond legitimising (A) and (B) to each other. The benefit is for a lot of cases the specific information stays with the relevant party, you just consent to when one needs to borrow some from another.
When I first started taking stimulants for ADHD and was trying to get the right dose I was confused because nothing was happening at first but finally reached a tipping point where it was working, but it was like a more intense version of my normal hyper-focus I would get at 8pm after "warming up" for 12 hours, after a couple of days it settled in between where I get the easy ability to switch attention without getting annoyed, or not realizing.
I've used a number of pdf libraries in python and C# over the years, none have worked reliably as needed (that's just pdf I guess), but haven't used pdfplumber, I'll be sure to give it a go, thanks for the suggestion.
Yes, additional metadata. Totally understand it adds in a lot of complexity but could help for fine-tuning an LLM.
With regards to dates, not a lawyer, but for Federal I would go with "Start Date", it's always the day following the End Date of the previous comp. The Date of Assent (well the year at least) is in the title, but also the first start date. The registration date can be either before or after the start date depending. [1][2]
The tricky part is when sections have different commencement dates that are detailed in the text. I don't know anywhere that is easily accessible. And, if you think about it, usually the most important information for say businesses being regulated.
I wouldn't worry with timezone per say, it's relative to each particular state.[3] i.e. why polling closes in a federal election at 6pm in each state rather than coordinated with ACT.
Yes, this. I've been trying to find a general way to automatically semantically chunk various legislation for a while now. Partly so as to diff various versions/amendments, but also to graph connections to other referenced legislation.
Most of the time I end up having to just take half an hour to manually regex and format plain text.
A particular case I have is where there is a draft bill put out for industry/community consultation. Quickly diffing the releases is the goal but for now usually relies on one (preferably two) subject matter experts to read the whole thing top to bottom to build an understanding. I don't think these would be available via the means you've secured. They are usually hosted on a relevant government entities website as PDFs
One last question/comment, have you considered adding some additional reference info like the federal list of entities?[1]
Being able to break down exploratory questions or define work to be done and communicating that clearly is 80% of general consulting.
Sure, you're aligning your approach to a machine, but it's not completely dissimilar.
I struggle with delegation in general, even taking the time to delegate to LLMs, mostly because I work faster intuitively and expressing myself clearly just takes longer. With the benefits of semi-repeatable results, personally, I've found the most benefit working with GPT3 & 4 over the last 6 months has been getting better and more conscious in describing what I'm after.
I like mTLS, I've worked in scenarios where both mTLS and OAuth are used separately and together, but if the comment here is suggesting certificates will be less complicated than OAuth then I would say I spent an equal amount of time banging my head against the wall with regards to learning and wrangling both, but maybe that's just me, would appreciate anyone else with experience in both to add their take.
The UK. Not standardized, just a lucky combination of a fancy school trying to justify fees and good teachers who made the most of the situation for their students.
Wow! I stand corrected. I was led to believe that Acorn went bust and sold to Psion. I thought it went Acorn Pocket Book 1, Acorn Pocket Book II, Psion 3.
This brings back happy memories. I was lucky enough to have the precursor, an Acorn Pocket Book, as part of my school curriculum. I lost it a few years ago in a move but I can still remember the the distinctive "device" smell (probably the case material). I yearned for the additional memory of the Psion 2. I would write lengthy stories that would fill up the memory. No off-device storage. I'd have to delete entries of birds i'd spotted and researched from cards app, tough decisions needed to be made.
Long before pokemon swept the west, our teacher would take us bird watching. We'd create entries in the cards app for each one we spotted, then research the birds in the library to fill out the entry. Then, as a class we'd trade (share) our research with each other.
I'm the same. Half the time I feel inspired and excited, the other half I feel cynical and tired.
FWIW from my point-of-view as someone in one of those companies working on products (and who hasn't read the paywalled article) I see a few things playing out that are not new, mostly it's the same newer, bigger hammer syndrome:
1. Trying to solve the same old inconsequential problems but with new tech
This happens all the time. Eventually you realise that the problem is actually relatively benign. You want the hammer to hit home every time but realise that even if it did there is no real value gained.
2. Trying to solve a problem that's already been solved with existing more established tech
Open calls for ideas in company innovation labs or platforms are full of noise. Some of that noise is always around the same automation problems, usually some kind of extraction or some kind of categorisation in a workflow. Most of the time products exist but people are just unaware. In large companies the capability might already exist in house but there's a "must invent here" bias
3. Trying to solve hard problems without the right domain or technical expertise
There are legitimate problems that appear innovative and novel, maybe ones that have been waiting for this level of capability to come along so they can execute, however, adequate knowledge of the technical domain (fine-tuning, prompt engineering, zero-shot, context) or the problem domain (how to read a cat-scan) limits their ability to make a cobbled together PoC reliable, repeatable, scalable, trusted.
Think of it as some generalist buying a stock rally car to build a new racing team, but doing it all themselves instead of hiring a mechanic to tune it properly, or a driver to give you the mechanic feedback... or the mechanic to tell the driver what they can and can't do at the extremes... or the driver to tell the mechanic to FO and "fix" it. Dialogue.
4. Problem is too niche and hard to communicate effectively
If a project succeeds in an organisation and there's no one around to hear it, did it really succeed?
5. Lack of existing innovation culture, strategy, or clear direction hamstrings any serious attempt
A non-starter. A lot of organisations still can't embed or operationalise their good ideas properly. If they can't do that already, it's unlikely to change here.
6. LLM successfully implemented into existing product but no body notices or cares.
The whole "put a clock in it" from product design or "get it to send email" of software.
7. Hard problems even with the right attitude and team still take time solve effectively with relatively new technology
Ignoring the legitimate institutional roadblocks of assuring privacy, security, safety, ethics etc. It's still early days. Cost of O&M long-term is still kind of uncertain, as are some of the basic parameters like the context window. Increasing the size of it could fundamentally change your approach. Anyone who was building a system before plugins were announced probably needed to re-think a number of things and go back to the drawing board. Sure there are some who will just continue as planned and iterate later, but some will be cautious before locking in.
Lastly, I know personally for me, LLMs have become a large part of enhancing my daily workflow. They have increased both the quantity and quality of my output but the 2 fundamental problems for me are:
1. Remember it's there and to use it. (Can what I'm doing could be done with LLM assistance)
or
2. How to formulate a question or request. (This is a fundamental problem of all "work" and "management" how do you define and communicate effectively?)
Purposeful strategic misrepresentation from those in power leaving others to succumb to sunk cost fallacy and perpetuate the myth of Hirschman's hiding hand...