Most games use ranked match-making to resolve this. If you're in Bronze, compete trying to get into Silver, etc.. My experience is that you have to be extremely bad to get stuck at the bottom of Bronze in most modern games.

Yeah, you'll lose a few matches as the ranking system figures out where to place you, but the cost of competition is unfortunately the mortifying ordeal of learning that you are not in fact the best in the world.

That's the point, though? To climb rank you need to get good, to get good you need to play a lot.

If you're that worried about child molesters knowing where the kids are, I've got very bad news for you: https://www.statista.com/statistics/254893/child-abuse-in-th...

Turns out, 95% of the predators already know exactly where the victims are, usually because it's their kid. Probably we want to worry about that a lot more.

Doubly so since, y'know, this only works if the predator lives close enough to act on the information before it changes - so the tiny possibility of a predator, a tiny possibility that they didn't already know this, and a tiny possibility of being able to act on the information...

I mean, it does seem relevant that this thread is for an article about them being fined a quarter-billion Euros, so they very much did break the law and the law very much does have teeth.

Oh boy, let me tell you about people 60 years ago - almost none of them knew about floppy disks and they were all busy doing physical drugs at Woodstock.

The onus of evidence is generally on the one making the initial claim: what evidence do you have that the modern world is actually getting worse?

But if you want evidence that we're improving, I'd point out that 20 years ago, the mainstream US position was that gay people were evil, 60 years ago they thought black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, and 100 years ago they thought women were also inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

We can keep going back to when people thought "slavery" and "the divine right of kings" were solid ideas.

So... if people were so much smarter in the past, why did they believe all these obviously-dumb ideas?

Is that really a bad thing? It's like saying Google Maps makes you lazier, because you don't have to learn navigation. And, heck, why stop there: cars are just insanely lazy! You lose all the exercise benefits of walking.

Yes? It’s all true. It can be good in one axis and bad in another axis.

Why is losing the ability/interest in navigating through a paper map by hand bad, though?

Humanity has adopted and then discarded skills many times in its history. There were once many master archers, nobody outside of one crazy Danish guy has mastered archery for hundreds of years. That isn't bad, nobody cares, nothing of value was lost.

What we call knowledge work is a bit different to archery though.

Writing for example is proven to be better done by hand with a pen and paper, people who take typed notes don’t retain as much.

AI has accelerated the most simple and obvious answers to easy questions.

For more difficult things deep thinking and writing, partly with pen and paper notes and diagrams are still the most effective tools.

You can still use pencil and paper for the difficult things. In fact, you'll have more time for doing so, because you don't have to use pencil and paper for the simple things.

Can you point to the consumer project / open-source program I could have run 10 years ago, for free, to do any one of the tasks listed in the article, much less all of them? Remember, it also needs a UI that works without needing any programming skill, just by asking plain-English questions

I've been looking for something like this for the last 20 years, and this is the first time I've seen anything that can actually produce intelligent answers about the giant trove of personal documents I've got floating around.

Where are you finding the API to get these prices?

Paying an individual to physically go to the store and check the prices on every good is presumably pretty expensive even if it's just quickly scanning each isle with a special phone app

what if we could incentivize the grocery store employees themselves, i am sure nobody minds earning an extra hour of work

I'd be very curious to see what sort of code / prompting goes in to these agents, and what sort of results you see from them - is the name just a personal reminder, or do the LLM subagents incorporate these philosophies? What sort of behavioral changes do you see from this method?

It's also a reminder - we're not just here for the surface concept of X, we're here for the deeper philosophical reasons of Y and Z. The goal isn't to check off a "disability accessible" checkbox, it isn't even to "think how disabled people might use this" - it's to be actually accessible to all the actual people with actual disabilities.

Trust me, there are a a LOT of people who need this reminder.

I'd expect the difference in prompts produces significantly different LLM outputs, too - tell an LLM to check boxes and it won't show much initiative, but give it a philosophy and it will often suggest ideas you missed.

Yes, this exactly! Thank you for picking up what I was laying down. I gave them these names as a reminder to myself, the person who is using these tools, who I'm doing this particular task for, why I should remember to look at what I do through particular lenses, and how to get the best output from my tools of choice.

They're my tools in my toolbox for my code. For most of the projects I've used them in, I've been the sole developer and the issues other folks have raised about naming schemes don't apply. I've shared them with colleagues, but if they use them they can call them whatever they'd like -- I'm not trying to say my way of doing things is better for everyone, but it is better for me. And maybe could be for someone else too.

(Sorry for both a three item list and a "not X, is Y" phrasing in my reply. Oh jeez -- and an em dash too. I'm working on moving my writing style away from what LLMs are throwing out there right now, but it's slow going.)