Only if you fill the extra space with rich arcade-cabinet style illustrations 😤

I legitimately forget that website exists for months at a time 😌

Terminal infinite growth brain

Since he's a business guy I assume he actually means "creative output" as if the thing in the way of most creative people is their own speed and not access to resources (such as a livable wage). It makes sense if you think the most important person in any creative team is "the idea guy"

Starting off with "it doesn't make uncreative people creative" as some kind of reassurance is weird. That would actually be amazing if it did. I don't get how if it can't do that, it's supposed to make a creative person more creative. By what measure? It's like saying it will make water wetter

1. So it makes creative people more creative but doesn't increase creativity if you're "uncreative"? What?

2. In what way. For what. Compared to what.

3. You now have to pay a huge subscription fee to access your new "skills"

4. How. Which gatekeepers? Surely not the AI companies.

5. Why?

It implies is that the asker would've accepted answers other than the one given at face value, which isn't verifying what it says. Or they just blindly run everything by AI first without thinking, which is worse imo

Sadly the freaky shit and lefty memes inoculation has only been shown 60% effective in clinical trials

Previous banger that I watched a dozen times and now watching again youtu.be/gNty2y0DQN8?...

Note the many January answers (his term start/end month) and November (his term end month for senator positions). The LLM learned stronger correlations for those months and "Barack Obama" than with other months. Likely because they showed up more often in the training data.

Even better this illustrates how subtle AI errors are. It always gets 44th president and 1961 correct, but the date changes. If you read any of these answers without verifying, they look correct, because you may know the year or ordinal is right. Yet it was only right ~32% of the time (Aug 4)