Even with that math, I do not interact with ChatGPT 240 times per day.
2,575 karma · joined February 11, 2022
>Thus it is possible that the social pathologies cited by Lorenz are preconditions for today’s mental-health crisis.
and
>It’s possible that Lorenz’s general intuitions may someday be validated.
and
>What we can say with confidence is that we do not know and that we owe it to those suffering in our mental-health crisis to be honest about that fact.
It’s clickbait meant to congratulate people that disagreed with Lorenz before they clicked on the article. Its substance is considerably less strong or confident than the headline assigned by the editor.
$20 is equivalent to what, 10,000,000 tokens? At ~750 words/1k tokens, that’s 7.5 million words per month, or roughly 250,000 words per day, 10,416 words per hour, 173 words per minute, every minute, 24/7.
I uh, do not have that big of a utilization need. It’s kind of weird to vastly overpay
>Lorenz isn’t wrong to suggest that economic conditions can influence the prevalence of mental distress. Unemployment and poverty are both major risk factors for depression. Recessions are associated with elevated rates of suicide. And there is some evidence that robust social-welfare states improve mental health by reducing material insecurity. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that America’s relatively stingy social safety net and elevated level of child poverty are implicated in its youth mental-health crisis.
lmao he agrees with her main point and then goes on to just shrug his shoulders in the next paragraph.
There’s no proof that hotdogs aren’t somersaults. There isn’t even a lab full of professionals studying this question or any published literature on the topic, so the jury is solidly out on that one.
My point is that you’re trying to use some sort of odd pedantic mark trick to shift the conversation from your experience of “There is a group that I personally don’t care about” to “Math dictates that this is not actually a problem worth addressing.”
Your position that the important takeaway here is actually the importance of scrutinizing pointless minutiae rather than text rendering being fundamentally broken isn’t empirically based. Your entire argument is “look at how clever I am!”, which is fundamentally off-topic when talking about rendering text properly.
Like lol, how are people supposed to learn the script if their examples are all messed up? As a maths genious surely you could see the issue with how “impacted people” is somewhere between “fluent people” and “fluent people plus an unknown number of others.” What hard number did you land at when adding unknown variable x to the number of fluent speakers you googled?
No it isn’t, it’s a command dressed up in lazy condescension.
Lol, again, buddy, this is super silly to the point of being sincerely comical!
The first thing you said to me was a condescending command. lol at “inviting advice in return”
Buddy you showed up to backseat mod in the first place. I’ve just asked you to personally leave me alone with the (from my perspective) kind of silly decorum police nonsense. I did not come out of nowhere and tell you how to interact with other people. That’s kind of a significant difference.
Posters have been able to pinpoint the number of fluent speakers, can you give me a ballpark to how many people matter and how many don’t matter?
This article about rendering text appropriately has taken such a fun turn into sorting folks into groups that “matter” and “don’t matter”?
If being rigid about these numbers is so important, how many people that don’t matter today might matter next year? How many people are learning arabic script? How many might want to look up something written in arabic without it being rendered in absolute nonsense?
How many paragraphs were you prepared to write to admonish that poster? This bit of policing is kind of strange to me.
My genuine feedback to you: Your very detailed analysis of my posts was not asked for, and calling me a jerk and a bully is not going to engender a working conversation between us in the same way that if I said “holier-than-thou backseat moderator” wouldn’t encourage you to engage in a real dialogue either.
Respectfully, in the future please try to curtail your impulse to impose your personal rules on me. I am not open to your coaching. Any further criticism of me is wholly unwelcome, will not be applied, and I’ll just have to ignore our respond to it in the same way I decide how to engage with any other pointless off-topic emotional nonsense.
I am not a big fan of time policing, but may I suggest you try to correct the folks using childish names rather than suggesting they be treated extra nice?
I also agree that the existence of a subset that wasn’t referred to at all in the article is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand!
I’m really new to all this and I’m learning new stuff about it every day!
I only understand a fraction of what this article says though :(
I’m genuinely confused here. The author was pretty much crystal clear about how he defined the size of the group that he was talking about, I do not understand how a person could be confused let alone feel the need to accuse him of being intentionally misleading.
What exactly is the nefarious goal that the author was trying to sneak past you with his clever trick of speaking in plain english?
Not really, because
>there aren't two billion people with functional Arabic literacy.
isn’t something that the author claimed. “To some degree” is a phrase that explicitly states that the author isn’t talking about full functional literacy.
It would be a super weird claim if “some degree” and “full functional literacy” meant the same thing, but they don’t! You would almost have to intentionally ignore the meaning of the words the author used and invent a nonexistent overlap of meaning to become confused on this point!
I have no idea why but I laughed out loud at this sentence.
LeadsCon? Really?
…We don’t? Nobody does? Ethicists aren’t cops. Nobody gets arrested by the ethics police or thrown into ethics jail. They have opinions which are then either ignored or supported by somebody in a political or managerial position.
Why would we give cover to the people that actually make decisions about laws by pretending that some stuffy academics are omnipotent?
edit:
> If we allow parents to destroy embryos, why is it so controversial to allow them to modify them?
There’s an entire profession of people that get hired to debate questions like that, they’re called… ethicists.
It is categorically untrue that you have to enable the cloud option to store/create logs and reports with the G6/G7. The app creates fantastic and easily digestible logs/reports on your phone, without any cloud processing.
Also can you elaborate on why having prior knowledge on this topic disqualifies you from being knowledgeable on this topic?
Wouldn’t the papers you’ve read have been written by people in the field of immunology or bioscience? How are those people not disqualified due to prior knowledge?
edit: Also please elaborate on how I identify the “right” blogs.
Sorry this is frustrating for you. I do not regularly come to HN for biology knowledge from software devs that can’t seem to provide any sources or credentials. What GP is trying to convey comes pretty close to medical advice and “people that have studied this professionally are categorically untrustworthy” seems a bit like some uh, less than germane bullshit, to be frank.