ANarrativeApe
The first question was: “How much do you understand about statistics and p-values?”
not probability, p-values.
I had to look up p-values to check it meant what I thought it did to avoid making a fool of myself in this comment. I knew I was probably right, but possibly wrong.
The same goes for my assumption that this survey was engineered to deliver a bad result. Why? because it makes it easier to get funding for a the author's solution to the problem. Again, probably right, possibly wrong.
Statistics, like math, is a language, first learn the vocabulary, then you can judge the meaning
It makes less sense in an era when tenure is better measured in months than years.
It makes even less sense in an era of LLMs.
One area where it might be relevant is the military. People are more likely to stay for longer (unvalidated assumption) and the same personnel jacket follows them if they are transferred.
It might also be thought of as a guide as to when to jump ship. If you have managed to get yourself categorized as a C, then leave. Start fresh somewhere else, take the learning with you, and discover if you have what it takes to make it as an A or B.
The guy who created Gmail is now 49 years old.
Why does that blow me away?
Secondly, where else does this apply beyond hardware, beyond the world of tech even?
Perhaps I should have this carved on my tomb stone...
The cost of living issue could actually work in favor of those with less money as they can afford less of the unprocessed meat and cheese, and would have to 'settle' for more lentils, frozen vegetables and other incredibly healthy and inexpensive food.
yes, I know the cultural reasons that will make this switch highly unlikely, but that is disconnected from the pyramid.
The popular takeaway from the pyramid will not result in a decrease in the popularity of takeaways, ready meals and other UHP foods.
The polarization of the debate is as unhealthy as the eating habits that desperately need changing.
that's because the pyramid is presented pointy end down.
And that's the problem with this interweb lark, made worse by aggregators who's algorithms can be gamed, and now we have stochastic LLMs adding to the remix, how do we know what is true?
The narrative related here is frighteningly believable, and, no doubt, so were all the reddit posts.
The difference between the narrative described by this narrative, and the narrative related in the narrative, is that one is death by a thousand cuts, the other either a well deserved take-down or an undeserved attempt at one.
I can't tell the difference, but reddit should be able to.
So this is really about whether reddit sees it's reputation as an asset to be monetized in the short-term, or invested in for the long-term. This is the classic tension between the brand manager and the brand guardian, maximize the cashflow or maximize the balance sheet value, and tells you almost everything important about a company's core culture.
How reddit handles this, it could be argued, will define reddit going forwards.
I watch with baited breath...
So the Constitution does not forbid it. All executive orders, it could be argued, are authoritarian, not just the ones that you happen to dislike. The moral? Be damned careful to whom you give this authority.
I appreciate that this could be easily circumvented by a 'bad actor', but it would make this abuse overt...
(sighs, thinks back to simpler times, remembers all the other shit that's going on at the moment, and wonders 'just how big a tarriff PDT will slap on the Huns')
ChatGPT will tell you the same - if you ask it.
I have a 6 million+ word archive with ChatGPT.
It truly is like having an army of interns, each a confident undergrad in a different subject, who have paid attention to every lecture they ever went to, event the one they'd popped acid just before going in.
It's right more often than it is wrong, but some of its clangers are almost unbelievable.
Yet, having never written a line of code, to build a python application that analyzed election data and applied the results to an interactive map, that gave constituency specific data on hover.
It invariable uses the word clarify instead of correct when challenged. Yet it knows that a clarification is refining an answer within the set of the previously proffered answer, and a correction is a revision on an answer outside of the set previously provided.
It believes that this is so consistent that, on the balance of probabilities this is coded and not purely as a result of training data.
When asked to write an article on this, and include the instances from that conversation where it had incorrectly used the word clarify, it edited the quotes to remove the evidence (probably the most egregious act I've witnessed it perform).
I still use ChatGPT, even more so now since DeepSeek got slow, but I watch it like a hawk.
I still call it out every time it prevaricates or flat out lies, it still promises to do better, it still, on being challenged, acknowledges that these assurances are dangerous lies to anyone who doesn't know it's lying.
But, for me, it is still a highly useful tool.
It frequently makes assumptions that would be made by those in a field I am unfamiliar with in a way that allows me to refine arguments.
Sharing ChatGPT chats can be a very helpful means of sharing one's thought process.
I have it on strict instructions not to create unless specifically told to, to not regurgitate what it already has, to focus on critiquing instead of echoing or praising.
Yet it still reckons 70% of its output violates these instructions.
But the remaining 30% justifies the time I spend using this remarkable, next generation, automation machine.
Because that is what it is.
*To say it is intelligent is like saying a scanner has an eye for detail. Yes, a scanner identifies every pixel but and LLM is no more a brain that a scanner is an eye. (And, yes, I know, but this is a line for people who don't know the neurological processing behind sight, which to be fair, is frequently not very logical.)
So it is a threat to people who earn money on fiverr writing bits of code or designing logos - hell yes.
It is a threat to those who code complex systems or who's designs can add actual digits to market share? hell no. Or at least not for the foreseeable future.
Just as the dotcom bubble funded the internet infrastructure that we still use today (just very inefficiently), it is unlikely these trillions will be completely wasted