squirrel

Maybe not in your country? Here in the UK I see https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-amazon-kids-tab... and https://www.amazon.com/b?node=221942402011 which includes the phrase "One for ages 3-5".

The definitive work on this topic is Normal Accidents, with a modern retelling in Meltdown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(Clearfield_and_Tilcs...

I just thought of another way to restate. Suppose you give me any finite set of points, any finite set at all, and you also tell me that when the 9 year old draws any line through any two of them, she will always hit a third. Then I can immediately conclude all the points lie on a single line, that is, that any line the 9 year old draws will hit all the points.

Well put. A similar way to say it: ask the 9 year old to draw ALL of the possible lines connecting two points in the set — of course this is possible, just might take awhile. The theorem says that at least one of the lines drawn must hit ONLY the two points the 9 year old used when drawing that particular line, not any others.

Had been consulting for equity with one startup out of an accelerator, so it was natural to go paid once I went out on my own. For the next few clients, approached investors I knew from that and other startups, who referred me to portfolio companies who needed me. I wish I'd read Alan Weiss's Million Dollar Consulting at the beginning though, I would have avoided many mistakes (like day-rate billing).

The author replied quickly and described his use of AI as very limited and just for grammar and wording. I believe him, based both on the text of the article itself and what he told me.

Thanks for writing that up. You convinced me that there was more Claude here than I'd thought, but I didn't see evidence that the author hadn't edited and supplemented, which is what I was suggesting. In fact, your last observation about correcting an erroneous date makes my point, not yours: Claude made a mistake, and the (human) author fixed it, thus improving the essay.

I certainly agree that the author should disclose the use of an AI, how much is human vs silicon, and clarify which ideas are his own and which are not. I've written to him to ask about that.

The article is well-written and makes cogent points about why we need "centaurs", human/computer hybrids who combine silicon- and carbon-based reasoning.

Interestingly, the text has a number of AI-like writing artifacts, e.g. frequent use of the pattern "The problem isn't X. The problem is Y." Unlike much of the typical slop I see, I read it to the end and found it insightful.

I think that's because the author worked with an AI exactly as he advocates, providing the deep thinking and leaving some of the routine exposition to the bot.

Drone view is so high it's unusable. How about an inside-the-blimp view?

Rural areas are trivially easy. May not be anything to do about that.

how about labelling famous locations like Times Square or the Louvre?

Anomaly is misspelt on home page.

This is not true for business books like mine. It's vital to write a proposal first in that world; publishers want to influence the content (as in the OP article).

I think the same is true for tech books but I don't know as I haven't written one.

A novel or other fiction is the opposite; there you do have to write the whole thing first.

Certainly, we're at the "bash it with a hammer" stage not ready for anything nuanced. I just wouldn't want to assume that the right outcome is "less autism"; I suspect most people could do with at least a little more!

As I commented in another thread, there's no a priori reason to believe that the "average" glutamate receptor level is the "right" one. Isn't it possible that there are:

1. "Normal" people with a level of glutamate receptors at 10, say, on a scale I'm inventing for this example

2. "Autistic" (according to the DSM) people with a level of, say, 5, who are hindered by the effects of being at this level

3. "A little bit autistic" people at a level of, say, 8, who aren't hindered and don't meet the DSM criteria, but in fact actually benefit from the effects of being at this level

Some "normals" might then want to inhibit their glutamate receptors somewhat to get the benefits of being at an 8 or a 9 on my made-up scale.