Interesting gimmick, but these graphs look truly hideous.
Which is probably a good thing.

Sure, but the progress is mainly driven by the capabilities of the LLM / Deep Learning. The scaffold is useful and currently necessary, but certainly not the main event.

Recently run across a Gary Marcus post unfortunately and he is still posting like its 2019. ("We need neuro symbolic AI, this other stuff is useless"). Which is incredible.

Hab aus solchen Dingern tatsächlich schon ein paar coole Romane rausgezogen. Auch wenn das meiste natürlich Müll ist, der vermutlich von netten Ehrenamtlichen alle 2 Wochen ins Altpapier geschmissen wird? Es ist auf jeden Fall super hoher Umlauf in meinem lokalen Schrank.

Unfortunately. It is among the worst features in the history of the internet.

GitHub - great-expectations/great_expectations: Always know what to expect from your data. Always know what to expect from your data. Contribute to great-expectations/great_expectations development by creating an account on GitHub.

Some of my colleagues used this:
github.com/great-expect...
But I am not really sure how easy it is to set up from the repo

I agree, you should obviously never use GenAI for data analytics, but this story does not have any semblance to how things work in companies that are large enough to have a data analytics departement.
We are unfortunately easy marks for ai slop that confirms our intuitions.

Yes, this only one part. Main one is that the source account shows bot behavior, which led to the removal of the post!
But everybody who has read a few ai texts recognizes it immediately.

Quite disheartening that so many people are nevertheless falling for it. Similar to the viral door dash hoax.

The moderators of r/analytics removed the post because the reddit account is an ai spam bot.

The text itself reads very much like all ai writing (e.g. no details, fully generic writing, standard gpt wording and flow) and get classified as such by ai detectors (imperfect as they may be).

Everybody does realize the reddit post is quite obviously fully ai-generated? This is NOT a real story that actually happened!

Ironically, the initial reddit post is most likely ai generated. The reddit account's history looks like a karma farming bot.
The Anti-AI crowd fully falling for it is quite funny.

Hiring more teachers is much more important than paying them better! In Germany teachers are among the top10 earners, but there not enough of them, so the outcomes are much worse than in Scandinavian or Baltic countries where teachers earn less, but there are more of them.

Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act - Nature Social-priming research needs “daisy chain” of replication.

This research by Bargh has been shown to be unreplicable. The whole chapter on social priming is basically discredited, unfortunately.
Rest of the book is still great, though.
www.nature.com/articles/nat...

YouTube AutoDub is one of the worst features in the history of the internet. It is so unbelievable annoying.

Twin Peaks - Fernsehfilme und Serien | ARTE David Lynchs Meisterwerk, eine einzigartige Symbiose aus Seifenoper und Filmkunst, lässt uns in die Abgründe einer amerikanischen Kleinstadt eintauchen und fühlt sich wie ein böser Traum an, aus dem m...

Alle, die "Twin Peaks" noch nie gesehen haben, können dieses absolute Versäumnis jetzt nachholen: Sämtliche drei Staffeln dieser bahnbrechenden Serie sind aktuell bei @artefr.bsky.social zu sehen.

That all three platforms are highly unrepresentative of the real world, because according to all usage stats in the general public AI is highly popular and it's popularity is still growing.

I can't really be sad or mad about current unrealistic views because the technology changes so fast. It's too much effort to keep up. if ChatGPT can't solve a task for most people that actually means "AI" can't solve it.
But I am confident that everybody will figure it out sooner or later anyway.

Not sure what the complaint is here? ChatGPT gets something wrong and people perceive that correctly?
The AI service that people apparently can't do it.

Why does it matter that a different model or system might get it right?

The 9.8 million are people with a UK IP adress. Not global visitors. As soon as they use a VPN they can not be counted for the UK anymore.
Global traffic has not changed due to policy changes in the UK. Which may not mean anything because the UK is too small to matter on a global scale.

How should they be counted? If they use a VPN their IP adress appears to be from a different country, doesn't it?
That's the whole point, isn't it?
To simulate not being from the UK

I agree. But still if you want to talk about those costs of curing cancer faster, I think you need to bring up something more convincing than the job satisfaction of a few thousand people.
The blog post does not mention any costs except their personal joy.
There are surely many better arguments!

This is all hypothetical. I don't believe AI will actually cure cancer. Or that automatic science will not mostly be a waste of time.
But if you arguing against curing cancer, I believe you need a better argument than: "Curing it later is more fun and meaningful for me personally."

The whole point of the blog post appears to me to be ithat for him personally the joy of doing science is the important part.
Which I totally get!
But for society the curing cancer is the important part. This is a nice to have:

> the activity they love and a key source of meaning in their lives.

Which sounds crazy to me if you take it at face value.

Yes, I agree! For understanding we need humans. But this distinction is not what the initial blog post is arguing. It sounds like we should not cure cancer, if it is not done by humans:
> So, no. I do not think it worth it to find a cure for cancer faster if that means we can never do science again.

For most psych medications we do not really understand why any of them work.
But we are still happy that we found those that work so far.

Honestly, why should people care whether a human cured their disease? I just want the cure!
The outcome is the important part for the people who suffer.

I personally feel similar. I do not want to learn to weld.
But the part where you argue we should delay finding a cure for cancer because humans have so much fun doing science is quite horribly phrased. I assume you don't actually mean that, right?
Because that sounds straight evil.

It sounds like you got exactly what you ordered (no "AI" features), but somehow you are unhappy with the outcome, because it is different than you assumed it would be.

Unfortunately, you fell for misinformation and turned of "AI" features which includes the functions you came to appreciate in recent years.

Because all of those functions rely on machine learning ("AI"). If you turn AI functions off you can not use spam filters anymore.