I built PromptToolbox to collect prompts in a table that help guide ChatGPT conversations. I’ve included a list of prompts that can be used to customize conversations for different scenarios. Users can also add their own prompts to the table. This tool is intended to make it easier to create conversations with ChatGPT by providing a way to quickly find and customize the right prompt. I'm open to feedback and suggestions on how to improve it.
Seems like, in aggregate, the question is whether adding variance to outcomes is net positive or negative?
Some students will receive multiple consecutive years of excellent instruction, others will receive multiple consecutive years of subpar instruction. Does the upside contain innovation and social mobility? Does the downside contain increased disillusionment with school and education broadly?
We pull the goalie when the odds are against us and increased variance is desirable. Is this such a case? Sadly, it may be.
I had split 3/4 and 5/6 classes, where you stayed with the same teacher and students for both years, with either an older or a younger cohort with you to fill out the other grade
Theres at least one benefit outside of having a good teacher for two years - - the teacher starts the second year with context about your skills and what needs improvement. Eg. They can spend the summer knowing how many students are ahead and plan relevant coursework
The downside was around not interacting with the students who have the other teacher much for a couple years. Much harder to retain those friends
This assumes that the teacher correctly identified what needs improvement, or cares to improve you. Neither of these are given. My recollection of school was that I was often miss-understood by teachers resulting in net-negative interventions. Sometimes I'd be fortunate and click with the right teacher. In aggregate my current success depends heavily on those few times I clicked.
Why does this simply threaten artists? At what point is code a type of creative expression? When are the IDEA for a novel technology and the chops to implement equally viable applications of AI?
Artists are losing today, but why are they in any way more vulnerable? They just seem to be next on the chopping block.
Can someone rewire my brain to be hyper-efficient when clicking through articles on HN and dreadfully-inefficient if my mind wanders to fantasy sports?
I suppose, if the definition of "weird" is loosely-related to "low probability of truth" or "wildly deviant from existing orthodoxy," the highest-upside ideas would seem to be "weird."
In that vein, the question is how many "weird" ideas can your portfolio of time and money afford at any point?
The NYT is taking a swing at longtermism, the New Yorker is taking a swing at effective altruism, and this begs for a little numerical reasoning on the topic. If we must consider every life (even distant lives), and most lives haven't been lived yet, and most lives not yet lived will enjoy a higher quality of life than we do (rational optimism), doesn't protecting THOSE lives trump everything else?
