I think this is a valid question for this specific case, but may not always be possible. That said, I think as a user I would probably prefer it if under the hood the old function called the new so they can deprecate the behavior without breaking the API. In that way you can still emit the deprecation warning while also only having one actual code path to maintain.
It’s also worth noting that this was specifically about the effects of ChatGPT on users’s ability to write essays: which means that if you don’t practice your writing skills, then your writing skills decline. This doesn’t seem to show that it is harmful just that it does not induce the same brain activity that is observed in other essay writing methods.
Additionally, the original paper uses the term “cognitive debt“ not cognitive decline, which may have an important ramifications for interpretation and conclusions.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar results in other similar types of studies, but it does feel a bit premature to broadly conclude that all LLM/AI use is harmful to your brain. In a less alarmist take: this could also be read to show that AI use effectively simplifies the essay writing process by reducing cognitive load, therefore making essays easier and more accessible to a broader audience but that would require a different study to see how well the participants scored on their work.
> In a less alarmist take: this could also be read to show that AI use effectively simplifies the essay writing process by reducing cognitive load, therefore making essays easier and more accessible to a broader audience but that would require a different study to see how well the participants scored on their work.
In much the same way chess engines make competitive chess accessible to a broader audience. :)
No one is surprised by this, though. Naturally, when you write, you will learn to write. When you make an LLM write, you're going to learn how to make an LLM write (well).
The question is how well your assumption holds true that learning to write generalizes to "an important form of learning".
Not sure how prevalent this is now, but a few years back I was seeing a lot of "cash price" advertised for stuff that was lower by whatever the merchant didn't have to pay in fees so sometimes cash may not be subsidizing the credit industry.
Handling cash costs money too. Sometimes more than handling cards. But a proportion of customers who like cash are very strongly convinced they are "subsidising" card payments, and might be attracted by pricing like that, so maybe it still ends up being a net gain.
From a percentage perspectice, handling huge amounts of cash should be far more expensive; I know one of the operators over here in my country: If you are a supermarket chain and have three locations in one large street, they charge you for every stop a minimum fee + additional handling costs.
When I suggested pricing like that might work, my point was not that it'd be cheaper. I 100% agree it'd be more expensive. But if it attracts a sufficient amount of additional business from people who want to pay cash it could still be a net gain (assuming those customers are still profitable).
There's no longer a blanket ban, but there are still obstacles:
* Mastercard and Visa don't allow debit card surcharges, even if the transaction is run as "credit".
* American Express only allows surcharges if they also apply to all other forms of card payment. This includes debit cards, which interacts problematically with the previous rule; if you want to do a card surcharge while accepting all three card brands and remaining compliant with all their rules, you have to apply it only to Mastercard and Visa and not American Express, even though American Express is the most expensive.
* Several states still don't allow card surcharges, and others don't allow merchants to profit from surcharging (which makes it hard to advertise a uniform surcharge) or have regulations about how prices have to be listed if a surcharge is going to apply.
Rules like these don't make it impossible to do surcharges while remaining compliant, but they make it significantly harder than it'd otherwise be. I think this is the primary reason why most merchants still don't do them. (Well, that and that their competitors don't, but that could explain either equilibrium.)
A cash and debit card discount is the same as a credit card surcharge, I fail to see how this qualifies as “significantly harder”.
Target, one of the largest retailers, offers a 5% discount for debit. Comcast, Tmobile, Verizon, ATT, Lumen, utilities, governments, and insurance companies also routinely charge extra for credit cards (or discounts for debit/cash).
Daycares charge more for credit card, as do doctors’ offices.
At least half the gas stations I see have long had higher credit cards prices.
Not to mention contractors for physical labor.
The change since 15 years ago is stark. If I wasn’t getting a minimum of 3.5% cash back on my purchases, I would use credit cards a lot less.
Huh, I didn't know that about Target (perhaps because I've lived for years in a state that doesn't allow this, so I can't get the discount where I live).
I did know that recurring utility-type payments, and payments of more than a couple thousand dollars, tend not to accept credit cards or to charge a lot extra for them, presumably because it's not as costly for them to make their users eat the inconvenience of setting up ACH payments. Most merchants can't get away with that. I've also seen it for gasoline but chalked this up to gasoline being an unusually fungible and high-demand commodity.
Do you know how they're handling the American Express problem? I don't think I've noticed a big contraction in how many merchants accept it.
> Huh, I didn't know that about Target (perhaps because I've lived for years in a state that doesn't allow this, so I can't get the discount where I live)
I linked to a website that shows the federal government specifically allowing it. You can definitely get a 5% discount in your states’ Targets for paying with a debit card:
Oh, this is a specific co-branded card, that's a different thing and one I've seen a bunch of places.
It seems pretty uncontroversial on the internet that American Express has this policy, and I can't find anyone alleging that Dodd–Frank prohibits it. There is a class action lawsuit against American Express alleging that the policy is illegal (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxngqeovx/...), but it makes its argument on antitrust grounds and does not cite Dodd–Frank—which it would surely do if there were a plausible argument that Dodd–Frank prohibits this. I don't know exactly how this squares with the text of the FTC's business-guidance page, but that page is a concise summary and doesn't get into all the details of the law, so my guess is that the situations it applies to are somehow different from what American Express is doing.
It’s not really a co branded card. They send you a Target Redcard you can ignore, but all it does is charge your debit card as usual. There is no credit check.
Your Amex lawsuit link is about Amex prohibiting different discounts based on payment card networks (see #4 at bottom of page 2).
Amex’s contract does not overrule the federal government’s rule that a merchant can offer a discount for debit and cash.
The Supreme Court upheld AmEx’s steering provisions in 2018.
Page 10: "Under Amex’s NDPs, the merchant...may not impose a 'parity surcharge' on credit card transactions, meaning a surcharge in which the merchant assesses the same surcharge amount on all credit card brands and does not surcharge debit cards at all."
The card issuers used to prohibit it, not been the case in a while though. They used to prohibit having a minimum transaction amount or charging transaction fees to your customer too. It never stopped small merchants though
> As I understand (I could be wrong), with agent mode, it edits the file for you, no way for you to accept before it does, so you have to manually check the diff, roll back parts you don't want, etc.
> Am I right?
With cursor you get reasonably flexible control at many levels. You can have it only suggest changes that you have to apply manually or you can have it make automatic changes with various ways to review, change, reject or accept. I usually have the changes made automatically but don’t accept the changes automatically. Cursor has a UI that lets you review each edit individually, for the whole file or all files. Depending on the situation I will use whichever level is appropriate. The UI also allows you to revert changes or you can ask the AI to undo or rework a change that you just approved so there’s plenty of ways to do large changes without giving up control. There’s also a stop button you can use to interrupt mid-stream if the work it’s doing isn’t what you want. It isn’t flawless but I haven’t found myself in a corner where I couldn’t get back to a happy path.
I think the article kind of tramples on its own point by showing a very long history of the changes to the Finder’s icon over the years, but I think what it’s trying to say is that it has been mostly unchanged for many years so it shouldn’t change now. It now has a gray box all the way around instead of two blue faces that go all the way to the edge. However, it simultaneously showed that it has been redesigned several times to match the aesthetic of the OS and while this is a larger change than most is still within the same design space.
The actual problem as explained in the first two paragraphs of TFA and shown in the first picture, is that the light and dark blue sides of the Finder icon have swapped sides. For the first time in its existence of many decades, the dark side is now on the right instead of the left. This is the problem.
I used to do aeropress or pour over coffee every morning but now I brew a large batch of hot coffee in a jar and then leave it on the counter overnight. The next day I remove the grinds and put the coffee in the fridge. Then on weekdays I just pour some over ice. It’s barely more work than making one pour over and I get 7 days of coffee with no prep work in the morning: delayed instant gratification all in one.
> There are amazing books out there but they are textbooks. 1000 pages long on a single subject, and people don't want that.
I would recommend to you, the author of the OP and others in this thread read “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman. It is old but it has had amazing sticking powe in my idea of what is entertainment and what is informational. He argues that many things are made to be entertainment (even some books that are thousands of pages) and challenges readers to consider this when deciding what to invest into. We can’t all be experts on everything so we make decisions, consciously and unconsciously about when and where to draw the line based on what information is available, how it’s presented and how much the value/work tradeoff is to study/consume it in that format.
I think the sting comes when we see people ignore low hanging fruit especially willfully but we would be less critical of someone saying that the task at hand is beyond their current capacity that someone else might be better suited to a particular task or topic.
