416 karma · joined September 29, 2010
I'm not sure about robustness, would have to wait and see tests.
> I and every other smart person I know still use ChatGPT (paid) because even now it's the best
My smart friends use a mixture of models, including chatgpt, claude, gemini, grok. Maybe different people, it's ok, but I really don't think chatgpt is head and shoulders above the others.
The major accounts from twitter are not on bluesky, but I don't care for vitriol or meme replies (all of which are much higher on twitter). That being said, twitter still has a lot of interesting people, who are the main reason to continue using the site.
But why do you believe that? You're asking for the article to prove that isn't the case, and I'm asking in all earnestness, what is the argument that it would be the case?
I don't think this comment draws the distinction between people who came here without long-term plans, and people who came here and left because they felt they would not be welcome long-term.
Not everyone can do anything, but I think any individual person can do a lot. But are they trying and are they thinking about how they're trying?
And then we get a computer that... how do I interact with it? Will it have its own OS? Some flavor of linux? Is the intent to work on it directly, or use it as an inference server, and talk over a network?
I understand that - I wrote just that in my comment above. But it's a lot scarier to see a pop-up saying "This extension in the worst case does this", versus the worst-case scenario and a longer explanation. I see from your profile that you're at a web3 analytics company. I'll just say that I think metamask would be a lot less popular if at install-time, the chrome store alerted that it can "make you lose all your crypto savings". Yes this is possible, but there's more to the situation than just a few words, and you can't express that all in an alert() window.
> if there aren't any fine-grained permissions suited to doing your task — then propose some I think that is easy to say, but being subscribed to and reading updates to the extension feedback threads that I've been on for the last few years, I'm not super confident in Google acting on community feedback.
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/akndolpagcjaolannk... [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/icdbglcdnjonofjpcf...
- I'm not really saying the crypto-side argument is right, really just trying to clarify my perception of what they're saying re: the comment above me.
- The physics thing is really just a comment re: when it's hypocrisy and when it's not.
- FWIW, theft in crypto isn't super well-defined to me re: the laws of men either. Maybe someone who knows current law better than me can explain, but calling a function in a contract that sends updates from one pseudonymous address to another... I don't actually know if current written definitions of theft covers that, or needs some court to interpret it as theft. We kind of understand it as people, but I honestly don't know if "laws of men" as written, do.
The "laws of physics" analogy doesn't match up. I feel like it would be more appropriate in an anarchist society (physics are the only laws, thus everything that obeys physics is game).
This feels more like discovering an exploit in a video game. It's up to the devs to patch it, or tournaments to outlaw, but if you find something out, you can use it. We agree to play by the rules, but if someone comes up with something last minute, they can win.
Lot of startups do this but have pretty high CaC. In the Sushi/Uniswap case, users were already crypto-native. In the twitter case, the majority of users are not. There's just going to be a bigger barrier than in the former case. Sure, I think if you spend money some people will switch, but it's much less clear to me how much money you'd need.