I am skeptical of your second claim here… if you can “scour for solutions”, and you find something about it on the internet, then AI could find it the same way.
A lot of the solutions are buried in places AI can't scrape or train on. Like inside people's brains or inside private codebases or chatrooms not open to bots. However you can find these people and the products and services they're making and start talking to them.
Most LLMs can't even count parentheses properly to build basic Lispy stuff. Building something niche like a logic solver in Scheme macros only? Forgetaboutit.
Just cause the AI could find the info definitely does not mean it will find and apply that knowledge correctly to solve a problem.
I find AI shockingly bad ad searching the web, as SEO blogspam sites heavily pollute AI context windows, while relevant and important resources are typically very densely presented reference material which must be constantly revisited.
It doesn’t need to. It has already all the fundamental knowledge it needs. Just set it up on a system with an editable proc file system and it would be able to figure it out.
My bigger takeaway here is that I didn’t realize that Google shared the full text of search queries that users used that resulted in a site being returned.
That seems like a bigger personal data leak than OpenAI doing anything here.
GSC does filter and threshold what shows, but that doesn't always work 100%. Also those filters are built to work against traditional keyword searches, not prompts. It's also supposed to threshold low volume queries which should have kept a lot of things prompts out of GSC, but for whatever reason that wasn't very effective.
I've worked in many GSC consoles over the years, and I've never seen anything like what I saw in this case. (I'm the original author)
"To protect user privacy, the Performance report doesn't show all data. For example, we might not track some queries that are made a very small number of times or those that contain personal or sensitive information."
It absolutely does, do you even use Google Search Console? For just one of my websites, I have 223 pages of queries I can look through from the past 28 days to see what users typed in that were provided impressions of my site or clicked on it.
"To protect user privacy, the Performance report doesn't show all data. For example, we might not track some queries that are made a very small number of times or those that contain personal or sensitive information."
It had some interesting ideas, and one of the things that stuck with me is the idea of your brain being a "difference engine" in that the variation is what matters. If we don't experience pain, we can't experience pleasure.
It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
Another thing I have come to believe as I have aged is that our western (American especially) society places too much emphasis on happiness, in that we think happiness is (and should be) the prime goal of every human. I have come to believe that less and less, and think something like satisfaction, contentment, and purpose are much more important as life goals than happiness. Happiness is an important part of life, and is important for reaching the other goals I mentioned, but it is not the end goal (to me). I think most of us somewhat intuitively understand this, although our response is often to redefine what happiness is rather than concluding happiness isn't our end goal.
If happiness was everything, we would be much more accepting and encouraging towards hedonism than we are. A heroin addict who has a good clean supply and no responsibilities would be the ultimate dream life if we truly believed pure happiness was the most important thing.
You say "redefine what happiness is", but I'm not sure there's any "re"-definition necessary, it can just be about how you define it. I wouldn't say that the things you mention (satisfaction, purpose, etc.) are alternatives to happiness, but rather that they're particular forms of happiness. And maybe the hedonism of the heroin addict is another form.
I'm not entirely sure it's incorrect to say that the heroin addict's life isn't a valid and desirable form of happiness in theory. The problem is that in practice pursuing that type of happiness has a high risk of plunging into extreme unhappiness. The same might be said of various other forms of happiness that we see as at least somewhat less objectionable. For instance, people who do BASE jumping may find a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from doing it, but still many people might view that skeptically as a path to happiness, because again it has high risks of bad outcomes.
I tend to think in terms of aiming for what I call "robust happiness", which means a form of happiness that's resistant to changes in circumstance, and in particular to the awareness of other people's happiness. When you're happy in a way where you can look at other people being happy and not wish to have their life or their form of happiness instead of yours, your happiness is robust in a certain sense.
>It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
I think this is pretty uncontroversial and you can observe it everywhere. Even in music, if you want the beat to hit harder, take it away for a short period, and when you bring it back it will feel like it hits harder and with more energy even though it's exactly the same volume as it was before.
Though it doesn't really explain how some people are continuously more or less happy. If the brain only cared about change, you could only ever be an average amount happy. Clearly something about continuous discontent and negativity still impacts you even if it might dull.
What I struggle with is that it’s hard to derive meaning from purpose when the best I can hope for is improving the lives of others until they are at the same level of comfort as me: struggling to find meaning and happiness.
We can all derive purpose from trying to improve eachothers lives, but if none of us end up happy, what makes that work actually meaningfull?
At some point we need something that is good in and off itself. That’s what happiness is meant to be I think
I'm not sure hedonism in that sense isn't a valid desire provided it can be safely sustained. Imagine there was a substance that made the user happy, without any of the negative side effects or tolerance. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing to take. The issue with the drugs today isn't so much their pleasurable aspects, but the physical dependency, risk of overdose, eventual tolerance etc.
It's a weird choice of word (especially in the company name, honestly). To my mind, loopholes are things that get closed. I would not want to be relying on a loophole for anything.
"Whoops, sorry, an innocent kernel update broke your entire production!"
The framing of the article --- the article is fine, it's a good piece --- is weird to me because one of the original marquee use cases for XDP was for hosting providers, where virtuals are connected to physicals by way of tap interfaces, where you have to reason about the rx/tx path to do XDP at all. It's not that the article is bad, it just creates the impression that there's something weird or nonnormative about what they did, when, again, I think there's literally an xdp-tutorial example of this.
"Go ahead and do stuff like this and don't worry about whether it's a 'loophole' is I guess my whole point".
Wait, how are 401ks part of a bankruptcy? I guess the matching portion?
Edit: from my quick research, it appears 401ks are completely protected in a bankruptcy. The only thing would be if the company had not yet sent your contribution to the servicer, then that payment would be considered another creditor. But if the money is in your 401k account at your servicer, the money is protected from any bankruptcy.
I feel like this is more of a general critique about technology writing; there are always a lot of “getting started” tutorials for things, but there is a dearth of “how to actually use this thing in anger” documentation.
reply