Thinking that good reputation in a law translates to a good lawyer is just as mature as thinking that a bad reputation translates to a bad lawyer, just two sides of the same coin. Credibility can be so cruel, it can make a brilliant mathematician like Terry Tao preemptively decline to read your mathematical arguments basically forever.
In both cases I think these may be characteristics of healthy judgment.
> I think in this case the expectation is set differently up front, with a "ChatGPT can make mistakes" footer on every chat.
If I keep telling you I suck at math while getting smarter every few months, eventually you're just going to introduce me as the friend who is too unconfident but is super smart at math. For many people LLMs are smarter than any friend they know, especially at K-12 level.
You can make the warning more shrill but it'll only worsen this dynamic and be interpreted as routine corporate language. If you don't want people to listen to your math / medical / legal advice, then you've got to stop giving decent advice. You have to cut the incentive off at the roots.
This effect may force companies to simply ban chatbots from certain conversation.
The "at math" is the important part here - I've met more than a few people who are super smart about math but significantly less smart about drugs.
I don't think that it's a good policy to forcibly muzzle their drug opinions just because of their good arithmetic skills. Absent professional licensing standards, the burden is on the listener to decide where a resource is strong and where it is weak.
Aternately, Google claimed gMail wa in public beta for years. People did not treat it like a public beta that could die with no warning, despite being explicitly told to by a company that, in recent years, has developed a reputation for doing that exact thing.
If you want to turn on full end-to-end encryption you can, if you want to share your pubkey so that people can't fake your identity on iMessage you can, and there's still a higher tier of security than that presumably for journalists and important people.
It's something a smart niece or nephew could handle in terms of managing risk, but the implications could mean getting locked out of your device which you might've been using as the doorway to everything, and Apple cannot help you.
There's no "information you wanted" in the plain np-hard version of traveling salesman for example. There's only cost. My point was that things get easier if you have the extra information and aren't solving the plain version anymore.
The simplicity and nice app experience is what's really good, but you can easily get better terms in the industry if you pay just one hour of attention.
I use the Apple Card because I love the customer UX, including the privacy from vendors part.
Yes I'm sure Apple Card data is included in that dataset. That isn't the point.
> And even if it's not, as long as the other side (i.e. merchants and acquirers) just collects and aggregates the same data, that's little consolation.
Respectfully disagree on this point. The issue isn't leaking anonymized aggregated data. The issue is, for example, Chase can and does personalize rewards ads based on your exact transactions internally. So when you use any Chase card, every Chase related entity has access to your non-anonymized transaction data for marketing and credit decisioning purposes.
I will cautiously watch how Apple handles this issue in the future because I don't trust Chase and my financial privacy is important to me.
> Most software houses spend so much time focusing on how expensive engineering time is that they neglect user time. Software houses optimize for feature delivery and not user interaction time.
Oh no no no. Consumer-facing companies will burn 30% of your internal team complexity budget on shipping the first "frame" of your app/website. Many people treat Next as synonymous with React, and Next's big deal was helping you do just this.
The Beryl AX is going for cheaper ($70) on Amazon right now vs the UniFi Travel Router ($80). Better bang for the buck on both hardware and software without needing specific Ubiquiti anything.
In both cases I think these may be characteristics of healthy judgment.
reply