there's some nuance to this. people might want to spend minimal time hacking on their shell and more time hacking on things they find interesting that are not related to shell setup (and also not webshit). besides even if its webshit, what makes you say shell setup hacking is more or less interesting compared to webshit hacking. the term webshit itself implies you view it as less interesting than shell setup -- fair if thats your pov, but doesnt make it intrinsic.
"Paxos Made Moderately Complex" by Robert van Renesse and Deniz Altinbuken: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs7412/2011sp/paxos.pdf is a great starting point for implementing multi-paxos. The authors also provide a working python implementation.
how does this service deal with a coordinated advertising campaign -- most likely also driven by LLM's over a period of say X months. Moderators on subs can be bought out or marginalized, while youtube reviews can also be bought out. In other words, how is an aggregated source a better and more trustworthy source of information than a single blogger who people can ascribe some amount of trustworthiness to over a period of time.
Great question. This would be a bigger issue if we were only aggregating results and summarizing them, but because we both aggregate and show (in our opinion) the highest credibility reviews from YouTubers (and other sources like blogs once we add them), our idea is that while the general mass opinion can be shifted through campaigns like that, the top end of the spectrum should hopefully still remain pure.
If on the other hand the top end of the spectrum is corrupted, then hopefully the masses can compensate for that. If both are corrupted and all of the data sources available are, then it really comes down to our ability to filter out LLM or promoted content which comes down to how well they can hide it. AI detection tools have been scaling alongside models, so it's also a question if that will continue over time. We'll think of some more advanced things if that becomes a bigger issue for us :)
At the end of the day, if a company can do a coordinated advertising campaign across the internet over months to block out any negative opinion, it's a big deal for both us and the social media/data sources we pull from that's going to be a challenge we have to deal with.
A workaround i've found is to always reply with "no you're wrong" for each seed reply. This forces it to either add more detail or in some cases give a completely different answer. If the replies are in the same ballpark, there is a good chance its not hallucinating. If it gives a completely different answer you are better off rewording the prompt or scrutinizing the answers more than you typically would.
Somehow everyone takes comments like my one above as being "my problem" with ChatGPT and offer "tips". Sure, there might be ways to correct the problem when it's gone off the rails and you happen to know that. That might make it more useful sure.
But that's not the point. The point is that average people are going to ask things they don't know the answer to and put some credibility in it's answer because it's fairly good at seeming right and at some percentage being. Me improving my approach cannot change that. Tips on improving performance won't stop that. etc.
Will be interesting to see what the post-AI movement will look like. I imagine some subscription service by a company that provides "authentic human generated consumable media" which has everything you listed from songs/tv/movies/news etc created by humans. I can see the early adopters of AI will be the early adopters of this type of service as well having gotten tired of the AI golden age. Truly human made content will become a status symbol and beyond the reaches of the average joe as AI generated content screws the supply v demand equation. I can see arts and adjacent fields becoming as in-demand as STEM in around 50-60 years.
Maybe people finally adhere to the requests of those bumper stickers plastered on the side of local music venues for the last few decades... "Drum machines have no soul" "Support local music"
and the next thing will be a scandal about how said service that was supposed to be AI-free content was actually AI generated (much cheaper), it will flop and then a replacement will come up and do the exact same thing until people get used to AI-free being just a gimmick marketing term.
Just like it has happened with so many terms before it.
No. Since the stock market goes up on average over time, it's always correct by expected value to invest sooner, rather than holding money back to DCA in installments. Intentionally doing DCA if you have a sum that you could invest sooner is trying to time the market.
DCA is a useful side effect when you're investing regularly, but on average it does not beat investing sooner.
DCA should be thought of as a portfolio strategy that is X% in your nominal portfolio and 100-X% in dollars and gradually shifting to 100% your nominal portfolio. It's an attempt to hedge against negative equities early on, but there are better hedges, and if your risk aversion makes you not want 100% equities early on, you probably don't want 100% equities later on either.
No. Invest everything that you can now (into low cost diversified index funds or ETFs) and then top it up regularly as you get more capital from whatever else it is you do to earn a living (e.g. a percentage of your salary every month, a percentage of your annual bonus, a percentage of the annual dividend from your business etc etc).
Do you have any recs? I currently use VTWAX, VTIAX, and VTSAX as my index funds. Even split between all three. I would appreciate any recommendations on what to change in terms of allocation.
DCA only speaks to the cadence of investment and is often contrasted to (and underperforms) lump sum. The strategy as a whole could be summed up as investing in low cost diversified index funds.
Counterpoint: meaning is a social construct and thus we derive meaning from doing activities which are essentially advice from other people (albeit implicit and not necessarily verbal).
