I don't think it's complexity keeping Arc from being a massive company. Notion is probably the most confusing software to use. Not only for new users, but as someone that uses it heavily, it probably gets harder and more complex to use it the more you (and your team) use it. But people still love it, and they have captured the gen z audience (see tiktok).
I was using Claude the other day and I was asking it like what LLMs support a certain functionality. It said OpenAI, myself (Claude) and Groq etc. I then asked it to give me an example of how it could be used (vague, I didn't specify what LLM) and the example it gave me was for OpenAI. I thought that was kinda refreshing.
Looks nice! I was using typeform to collect surveys but found the UX weird so I switched to Google Forms. Found we got more conversions too, it's just simpler to use. The one thing missing was I wanted a way to redirect someone after they completed the form. That wasn't supported so if there is anyone else in a similar boat, I made this (free) service: https://www.gfrdr.com.
I think it's possible AI models will generate dynamic UI for each client and stream the UI to clients (maybe eventually client devices will generate their UI on the fly) similar to Google Stadia. Maybe some offset of video that allows the remote to control it. Maybe Wasm based - just stream wasm bytecode around? The guy behind VLC is building a library for ulta low latency: https://www.kyber.video/techology.
Standing up for womens rights gets you labeled a TERF now. It's not exactly a bad thing to be called these days lol. Heck, even JK Rowling gets called this and shes the furthest from transphobic.
She is against womens rights being taken away. Trans people already have all the same rights as anyone else. Please name one right a trans person does not have that anyone else does
This exact same argument was used against gay marriage ("gay people can get straight married!" and interracial marriage ("anybody can marry somebody of the same race!").
If predominantly one class of person wants to do something, you can easily discriminate against them by outlawing that specific action.
In contrast, articulating the "women's rights" that are being hurt by trans rights usually end up in an awkward formulation like "the right to have a place in which they won't see somebody they think is a man."
So again, what right do trans people not have? They can get married. It's very easy to articulate the womens rights that are being violated lately. Simply talk to any women in the real world
Losing access to single sex spaces (bathrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc). Men are statistically more violent than women and you are suggesting we should just let them freely into womens spaces. This is why they have fought for their own spaces
In the UK: access to GnRHa hormone blockers during childhood. Routinely prescribed for precocious puberty in cis kids, yet literally illegal to prescribe to trans kids.
Because, you see, after excluding all studies not carried out in the UK, restricting to studies on trans kids, and then individually discarding the studies that remain, there's no evidence of safety. In fact, there's no evidence at all! Further research is needed before we feed experimental drugs to our vulnerable children. (We have to pass an emergency prohibition about this, because those meddling "doctors" won't listen. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/727/made)
Cis kids are… biologically different, somehow? So the studies demonstrating safety and efficacy apply just fine to them. Yeah, that's totally the reason: medical necessity. Not politically-motivated discrimination against a protected minority, no siree.
I'm not sure what you are arguing, but yes, unless a clear medical emergency the science definitely says kids should not be taking puberty blockers. Nearly every country is cracking down on giving them to kids (trans or not)
You just cited the report that the poster above you referenced as cherry-picked, which is rather amusing!
Regardless, and it's anecdata -- but everyone I know who is working in the fields of medicine on the subjects the cass review covers, have pointed out numerous critical flaws in it that undermine every single point it makes. It's actually somewhat worse than if you got a PDF paper from Natural News dot com, a site that I discovered in the mid 2010s was rehosting and editing medical papers to say whatever they wanted.
Something to consider: when you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist feminine stereotypes?
More to the point, when a male says he identifies as a woman, what exactly is he identifying with? You can't identify with a organs you don't have, so what could he actually be identifying with, if not sexist feminine stereotypes?
And how is it progressive to say that a man who identifies with feminine stereotypes is a woman? Is it not more progressive to say that a man who identifies with feminine stereotypes is simply a feminine man?
> Something to consider: when you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist feminine stereotypes?
Any definition of woman that includes all cis women must include all trans women, or will otherwise include trans men.
Fertility? Many women are infertile.
Chromosomes? There is at least one genetic line of women in the world where they were all identified at birth as women and have each given birth, but have XY chromosomes. Anecdotally, many universities have had to stop genetics students from testing themselves for their chromosomes as a fun thing to do on the weekend, because the incident rate of chirality is MUCH higher than you would otherwise expect.
Any other such metrics either end up becoming pure phrenology or excluding massive amounts (millions) of women.
Moreover, trans women do not "identify with female stereotypes" and they are often most often strongly aligned with cis women who break stereotypes, cis women who are also largely targeted by the bathroom bills you are in favour of. The science says that being transgender isn't purely social and cannot be fixed through therapy, please avail yourself of the cult[0] that you are a part of.
If we take this to the extreme, user interfaces are going to be generated on the fly, specific for the user. They will adapt to the user based on the device they are using, time of day, what data is being displayed, what the user prefers, etc.
These large models generating views might be streamed from servers (ala stadia), it might pass off some of the work to edge devices.
The models will be able to store things and communicate with other models as needed. Models might spin up that perform certain things well and have access to specific resources.
Imagine a company trying to offer support to interfaces all tailored to a specific user. I can imagine a future where this is viable, but it will def be a longer time span than 5 years
Yeah... no chance. There will be no code in 5 years. What a joke. Even if it were technically possible (it's not), the idea that the humans involved would be able to make it happen in such a short amount of time is laughable.
Seriously, think harder about what you're suggesting here. It's ridiculous.
Dude chill, it's a thought experiment based on how things are moving right now. Maybe i'm off by a magnitude of years, who cares. Whether it happens in 5, 15, 50 years, it's going to happen.
Who said so? It might not happen at all. We might well be coding in a thousand years, why not? Non-programmers seem to not understand that a programming language is just that, a language. We use it just because it is more productive than using plain English, which now with LLMs is becoming a better tool to program. But prompt engineering is still programming and that won't change in a thousand years.
The idea that programmers won't want to code, or that artists won't want to art, or that musicians won't want to music, is absurd. Creativity is one of the most rewarding things a human being can engage in, just because corporations would prefer to pay for shitty, broken hallucinated code or art doesn't mean humans will stop doing it for their own satisfaction.
This concept obviously flies well over the heads of the LLM/AI/AGI bros who think that our creative lives is going to be rendered obsolete by vegetable silicon. They lack creativity and imagination.
You didn't present it as a thought experiment, and it's also not something to treat flippantly. If it happens, it will be because we achieve AGI and nothing less. I know it's in vogue to think that's 5 years away right now, but we're not remotely close and it's also in no way inevitable.
If it does come to that, whether or not there is code will be the least of our worries.
reply