To be fair, the diction in modern movies is different than the diction in all other examples you mentioned. YouTube and live TV is very articulate, and old movies are theater-like in style.
Of course. IQ tests measures nothing more than the ability to pass an IQ test, which is proxied by a lot of things such as western culture, education, propensity to cram tests, etc.
> IQ tests measures nothing more than the ability to pass an IQ test
Incorrect, IQ is a composite measure correlated with fluid reasoning, crystallized knowledge, working memory, processing speed, and spatial ability. It's true that you can't naively use IQ to compare two diverse groups, but you can correct for this with a large enough sample of any two groups. This idea that it's biased towards western culture or education is vastly overblown.
What's up with the "prompt refinement" business? Are folks trying to get it right with one shot?
My experience is that treating the generated code as a Merge Request on which you submit comment for correction (and then again for the next round) works fairly well.
Because the AI is bad you get more rounds than in a real code review, but because the AI is fast and in your command each round is way faster than with a code review with a human (< 10 minutes feedback loop).
If your checklist is PITA to got through, then completing it will more like to lure you into that false sense of security that you might even miss something obvious.
IMO the best way is to start small, and every time checklist didn't catch an issue either modify existing item(s) or add new item(s). Organic complexity is the best complexity.
Any business model where ads can be paid off has no incentive to make good ads. Ads are meant to be annoying enough so that people prefer paying. Hence the war on ad-blockers.
This is too simplistic. Youtube started as an ad-supported service and today ads still generate the lion share of Youtube's revenue. Youtube ads are some of the most expensive to buy; Google has no incentive to push viewers off the ad-supported tier.
Google wants you to watch ads OR pay for a subscription, but it doesn't necessarily care which; they make money off you either way.
The reason Youtube offers a premium tier at all is to cater to the minority market of time-poor money-rich users who would rather pay than watch ads, which is just a smart move to broaden their audience and diversify their revenue streams. But it's not the primary way Youtube makes money and likely never will be.
depending on what they watch and how much time watching, youtube might actually lose money on a premium user. I imagine it's not easy to watch enough be worth $12 dollars worth of ads in one month tho...
Using a $20 CPM [1] (Cost Per Mille, the money advertisers pay per 1000 views), $12 turns out to be 12/20 * 1000 / 30 = 20 ads per day. I would argue that the average youtube premium user watches less than that.
And I would argue that youtube really knows the numbers, and google would not lose money. Don't forget they've turned evil ;)
The main problem with this analysis is that not all Youtube viewers are of equal value to advertisers. Premium subscribers are the people who have demonstrated that they are willing and able to spend money on luxuries. These are also the primary audience of advertisers (compared with, say, the elderly living off welfare, minors without a credit card, people living in poor countries).
Every premium subscription Youtube accepts reduces the value of its ad-supported audience, not just in an absolute sense (i.e. this user won't watch ads anymore), but in the sense that it lowers the CPM advertisers are willing to pay for the remaining “cheapskates”. The premium subscription price has to account for that, which is why the price should be significantly higher than the average ad revenue per user.
> Google wants you to watch ads OR pay for a subscription
Actually I suspect the logical operator here is `AND`. In fact, this is largely what holds me back from paying for any Youtube subscription; frankly I don’t trust them to show me zero ads ever regardless of what fee I pay. So I will keep playing the cat-and-mouse game as long as it lasts.
Do they serve you ads today when you have a paid subscription?
If they ever start doing that, you could stop paying. But not paying now for the hypothetical possibility that they may start serving you ads in the future sounds more like an excuse.
YouTube doesn't, but many video creators do. Not something YouTube has much control on though, for them, that's just content and is served as such. You can use the SponsorBlock extensions to automatically skip these if you want.
Right, but the claim was “GOOGLE wants you to watch ads AND pay for a subscription” and that doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence.
I get that as a premium subscriber you still see in-stream sponsored content, but that's because the creator wants that, not Google. I think Google would rather have those sponsored messages be run as regular Youtube ads instead, so they can take their 45% (?) cut of the ad revenue while letting premium subscribers skip them.
Google did well my making the main search ads not too annoying - just a bit of text rather than flashing dancing nonsense. If they'd done the later people would have switched to bing or what have you.
Huh? Who do you think are creating and buying the ads? Ads are supposed to get the word out about products. No-one is making ads with the intention to annoy people
The advantage of Cursor is the reduced feedback loop where you watch it live and can intervene at any moment to steer it in the right direction. Is Codex such a superior model that it makes sense to take the direction of a mostly background agent, on which you seemingly have a longer feedback loop?
