mitchdoogle

You're painting this as some sort of hypocrisy but I don't think that's the case. AI has infinite legitimate uses outside of creating slop. Lots of tools are used in the creation and distribution of slop - do we criticize all those other tools too? Do you like slop? Do you want it on the platforms you visit? Personally, I would prefer for AI companies to take the attitude that YCombinator has here and do their best to remove slop from their platforms. It's not hypocrisy - it's ethical business practice.

When I have AI write things for me, I'm spending a good amount of time on it - certainly longer than it takes to read. I'm also usually editing it quite a bit. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I still don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement about using AI to write content violating this social contract you described.

Of course the process can be stopped. That's just a lack of imagination.

Those are bad analogies. And they shouldn't be in quotes because nobody said them. An LLM tutor is not a threat to anyone's safety or health.

Now, I don't think a person with chronic major depression or someone with schizophrenia is going to get what they need from ChatGPT, but those are extremes, when most people using ChatGPT have non-extreme problems. It's the same thing that the self-help industry has tried to address for decades. There are self-help books on all sorts of topics that one might see a therapist for - anxiety, grief, marriage difficulty - these are the kinds of things that ChatGPT can help with because it tends to give the same sort of advice.

I would go for a verb that matches what the user actually is doing, i.e. "Reset Password". Also, I think a panel with a red or yellow background coming up after a couple of unsuccessful attempts to login with a complete sentence, "If you have forgotten your password, please visit this link to reset your password"

Put something better. "Visit our site", "View Results", "Download File", "Next Page". Almost anything is better than "Click here". "Click here" is the result of laziness - think about what the button does for a couple minutes and you should be able to come up with better text

It's unfair because they didn't buy tickets the way normal people do. Lottery machines are supposed to be in regular places of business, like gas stations or grocery stores. Companies called couriers popped up years ago that skirt this requirement by having a token storefront, while their real business is selling lottery tickets on the Internet, connected to physical tickets they print in their store. Secondly, the courier the buying group used requested additional ticket printing machines in the weeks leading up to the drawing, an unusual request that seemingly was not scrutinized at all by the TX lottery commission. So not only did the buying group have to use a method to buy tickets that already is unfair (and goes against the spirit of lottery requirements that tickets must be sold out of normal stores), they had to conspire with a courier to get enough machines to print out all the tickets in time. I think it should be obvious this kind of process is not available to the vast majority of Texans, even those with the financial means to do it, so yes - it is unfair.

It's definitely influencing my home buying decision. In Philadelphia area, Delaware County property taxes are a significant amount higher than neighboring Montgomery county. I am looking in both, but my budget is about $30k higher in Montgomery county because of the taxes. I would venture a guess that similar houses in Montgomery county generally sell for more than their counterparts in Delaware county.

People know what "private" means. If a company calls something private, but it isn't, then they're the ones who need to reconsider what it means, and call their service something else.

"Lived experience" usually means first hand knowledge and experience, as opposed to the knowledge or information they would gain from external sources.

So, understanding this meaning, I hope it's quite obvious that lived experience is much different for people today than ancient people. Our technology is far more advanced, more information is available to us. And it is all influenced by the vast amount of information that is external to us which puts our first hand experience in different contexts.

I know right? It's just as logical to frame this as reduced pricing at off-peak times, but I guess that's not so sensational.

Nevermind that many people would be happy to pay a little bit extra to avoid waiting during peak times.

I had history back to 2012 and accidentally deleted it a couple years ago and I was very saddened at the loss of all those years of data. Every now and then I would look and see where I had been or just how many times I had visited local shops or friends' homes. Since then I have been trying to use Google backup and downloading it, but that feature has been very frustrating to deal with. Many times it fails to backup or fails to download the zipped file.

People want to use it because its very easy to sign up and very easy to use. Even compared to Paypal, its much easier in my experience. And the vast majority of users don't have any issues at all.

Whether someone truly cares about an issue or whether they are pretending to care, if the outcome is the same then does it actually matter?

In my experience the scores are not usually that far apart (< 20 points or so let's say).

In the instances that it is far apart, the differences are usually easy to articulate. Critics appreciate and notice technical aspects of films more than average viewers, and are quicker to recognize cliches and tropes.

This can lead to movies having much higher audience scores than critic scores, which flies in the face of the notion that critics are getting paid.

I've been using the website Movie Lens for over a decade and it works kind of like this, except you're not comparing to critics, it's just other users' average score

Deliberately ignoring experience and expertise because corruption is merely possible, is not the right way to go about making decisions.

Isn't this basically how rotten tomatoes works?

It seems to me like fans of LotR decided before it even came out that they didn't like it and have brigaded platforms with negative reviews. Maybe its not even a conscious effort. Lots of people dislike Amazon. And lots of the fans disliked the whole notion of turning this content into a show. I think that has colored the reaction to the show among the public while critics can usually take a more objective view

I tend to view the opposite. An individual is way easier to manipulate than an entire platform. Anybody who gets free products is immediately tainted. Project Farm says he pays for everything but all we have to trust that is his word. If you trust him, why don't you trust RT when they ban the company that paid for the reviews and say, "we take the integrity of our platform seriously"?

The more reviews that go into a rating, the more effort has to be made by bad actors to influence the score. And the higher the possibility that someone with integrity will reveal the scheme.

People like Rotten Tomatoes. It's a trusted source of information. If you know of widespread review manipulation then that IS news because it affects how people perceive the site and it's trustworthiness. In this particular case, RT's response is commensurate with what you'd expect of an organization that takes their reputation seriously. There's nothing here that indicates this is the normal state of affairs

I always look at critic score like quality of the film (acting, editing, etc), and audience score as entertainment value. I look for films that have 80+ in one and 70+ in both.

We have more prestige TV coming out now than ever before. And of course the streaming platforms include the prestige TV of yesteryear as well. The value at current prices is simply astounding.

I don't know what it is about these platforms but most people seem to have an odd take on their value - so much that most of the comments in threads like these are people complaining about "there isn't anything good anymore". But each platform has thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours of programming. So when someone complains about their choices, I have a sneaking suspicion that they just aren't looking and are basing their views on the heavily marketed major productions, which only account for a handful of shows or movies each year.

While others complain about cost, or having too many choices, I am quite pleased with the current offerings. I don't have every platform, but the ones I do are more than plenty. I'm worried that it's all gonna go back to a cable-like model in the future with platforms combining and charging $100+ for a super platform.

People just don't know how to enjoy it when something is good.

P.s. you can usually buy episodes of a show on Google or Amazon or elsewhere.. watch an episode at a time and only buy the next one if you like what you see. You'll quickly find that model is much more costly to the consumer.

What are you talking about? This whole thread is discussing how private enterprise is failing consumers. Meanwhile, countless examples exist of government-run entities and non-profits that are well-liked and less expensive for consumers.

I don't think a large-scale repair entity created by the government is the answer to this problem, but it's clear you have a bias towards business, and in the repair industry, business is the problem and we need a government solution. I don't understand why anyone ever has your attitude. Any organization can be run poorly and its leaders susceptible to corruption, whether that be a government one or a private entity. You have to understand the problem to offer solutions and in many cases, a profit motive simply does not provide the best outcome for consumers.

It's a chronic disease and there are many chronic diseases that are treated with permanent medication - diabetes, blood pressure, mental illness, HIV, to name a few. You can't will yourself to stop being obese any easier than you can will yourself to stop being depressed. We simply aren't consciously in control of our appetite or metabolism.

And it's worth remembering that obesity contributes to many other diseases and premature deaths. Treating it long term will prevent a lot of human misery and billions in healthcare costs down the road, even with the high price tag that it currently has.

I think the fact that millions of people want (and try) to lose weight, but fail, over and over again, is 100% proof that will power does not matter in the slightest. These drugs like Wegovy, Ozempic, etc are showing everyone that we don't consciously control our appetite. Our bodies and our brains will betray us and take control despite whatever our desires may be. Hopefully people start to view obesity with more compassion and less blame on the people who have the disease.

So if you want free labor, you just create harsh penalties for minor crimes.

Hopefully the future will bring autonomous vehicles and drunk driving will simply not be an issue anymore

Punishments are not an effective deterrent. That is, you could increase the punishment ten fold and people would still do it. What matters is if people think they will get caught. You put up driving check points every weekend around the nightlife areas and you will see a decline, because people will feel more certain they will be caught, even if the punishment is not as bad.