You missed the point.
A friend of mine made a tea-timer app for the iPhone. Where you enter what tea you are making and it sets the correct number of minutes. Today, people would ask ChatGPT before they go on the App Store to search for something like that. That's the point. Not what YOU would do, but what the general public does. And for Jane Doe, ChatGPT has replaced a lot of these specialty apps.
Skills are great until they aren't. The problem is exactly what you say: You can literally create a skill by telling the LLM to create a skill. Which is... why the f do I need to make a skill if the AI already knows how to do it?
Properly created skills, that include reference material, specific instructions, and expert knowledge the LLM doesn't have or that's buried somewhere under 10 layers of reddit posts is genuinely useful. But most skills aren't. I'm constantly underwhelmed by hyped-up skills that, when I look at them, turn out to be bland, basic instructions.
or Nash Equilibrium. If EU wants to get away from MS and GOP's flakey tribalism, they have to agree to all (or most) moving at once, and accept a learning curve.
I'd go with Nash Equilibrium here. DVORK is not inherently better than QWERTY for typing speed, although it is less prone to causing RSI. The big downside is the learning curve and making shortcuts like Ctrl-V harder to press.
To that one user: "Tough shit. You're getting and using the updated software or you can find yourself a new job." Assuming you have that power, of course.
User: The annual report is nit ready because IT forced a software update and it broke the report generation. I tried to warn them but they did it anyway...
No browser is going to bring back the good old days.
I want Ludwig Plutonium, AFU, Kibo, Serdar Argjic and the Zumabots, Ted Frank, and Joel Furr vs. The Green Card Lawyers...
But again that's backwards. I let my AI coding assistant write tests exactly so that I have a reproducible, deterministic ground truth that I can inspect for logic errors. If you let the AI do the testing directly, it's a toss-up if today it feels like it or it decides that your desired result is "everything green" so it'll just give you that answer without actually testing anything.
LLMs obviously aren't human. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't need to know a programming language to program a computer.
For example: Especially in the early days of smartphones, there were mountains of small tools that did something that's essentially a simple script. Egg timers, remind-me-tomorrow apps, tons of stuff that's basically a wrapper around a web search, and so on. Almost all of those are today something ChatGPT can do, and are easy enough to describe.
and if you don't approach the LLM wit a borderline adversarial level of suspition and mistrust
I've actually outsourced the first iteration of that to AI.
At the end of coding sessions, I generall ask it to spin up an adversial agent whose task it is to find flaws, inconsistencies, mistakes, bugs, etc.
I'd still strongly recommend to anyone shipping AI-generated code to have a thorough human code review, but for a first pass at surface level, the AI can check itself if it has some kind of separation between the generator and the reviewer.
Personally, after some experimenting, I've concluded that:
What I use it for these days is rapid prototyping. Using AI I can make a functioning prototype of an idea I have in a few days instead of a few weeks. I can quickly test out an idea for a feature or change in my existing codebase.
What I also have been using it for a while is as a code-reviewer and for someone like me who is mostly working solo, that's an insanely valuable thing. Not just the bugs themselves, but also the ability to discuss code with someone. Basically, AI is a rubber ducky that replies.
Mickeysoft lost the plot again.
The game-changing element of LLMs and agents is that they have a non-computer-language interface - you can talk to them in plain English (or Chinese or whatever). This makes complex computer interactions available to a much wider audience than any previous computing invention. Adapting humans to the AI is getting that backwards. It's a sign you don't understand the first thing about why AI is so widely successful.
I predict this will be an abject failure and a year from now will quietly be pushed to the very back of the bottom-most drawer, never to be spoken off again (though it is getting crowded in there for M$).
Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone I've talked to about these things already has a skills file to teach the AI about their personal coding style. This is what actual humans came up with, independently several times, and it works: Adapt the AI to you. Plus we've been writing coding style guides for humans for a long time now, we've got plenty of experience doing that at least somewhat right.
These organizations are offloading their technology deficiencies onto the poor and incapable user.
I, as a seasoned professional that has seen every trick email that has ever been sent, cannot determine if certain messages are malicious or not. The users will never be able to do it themselves. And punishing them, whether that's reprimand, scolding, mocking, making them resit training, is NOT the right way to do it.
Exactly. IT orgs should put defenses in place to catch the majority of fishing emsils, using sender info,AI to recognize patterns etc. You won’t catch everything but can greatly reduce the chan crew s they get through.
I now am dependent in part for my livelihood on paypal. Going to check my contact info there now.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Finformationr.us%2F
Yepp, as I said: The system is built first and foremost to defend itself.
Personally, I don't think that police should have any right whatsoever to enter your digital devices. Yes, including for terrorism and kiddie porn. And I am 100% for us nerds developing defenses against this overreach. This case is a lesson that teaches us distress PINs are a good thing, but we need to improve on them, make it less obvious they were used, etc.
It's not a question of "Germany for the Germans". It's a matter of allowing people who are openly opposed to your culture to become a sizeable minority, while at the same time putting pressure on society in every way in order to extract wealth for the "elites", while at the same time replacing everyone among the "elites" who is actually capable of something with incompetent, corrupt egomaniacs.
If one of these factors were absent, we might yet manage. Competent leaders might be able to keep things together. Not maximizing profit for the few while returning the populations' lives back to peasantry would give ordinary people breathing space to cope with everything and solve issues at the base. Not importing culture war would keep society more cohesive and able to fight back against the exploitation.
As a (small) shareholder of both companies, I'm against this move. Not that my opinion counts for much, but these are two companies that are strong each for their own reasons and a merger would muddle that. But maybe that's the point.
We thought the Megacorporations would emerge as vertically integrated all-consumer-products giants. Turns out that a tech bubble beats that.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.
