I thought the article would be about something like when you get $100 free chip, you are much more likely to gamble and lose it; or when someone win a lottery, they would quickly spent the money compared to if they had earned the money with hard work.
BTW, behavior economics people like DAN ARIELY in this article got bad reputation after being found fabricating data on the research about honesty
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1190568472
I wake up every morning in a bed that’s too small, drive my daughter to a school that’s too expensive, and then I go to work to a job for which I get paid too little. But on Pretzel Day… well, I like Pretzel Day
I started to read your blog since the time you encountered a disastrous event with tinypilot hardware (something like a floor or fire). I really appreciate your recording and sharing of your experience and growth. Good luck to your book and look forward to your news.
Markus Funk, Vanessa Tobisch, and Adam Emfield. 2020. Non-Verbal Auditory
Input for Controlling Binary, Discrete, and Continuous Input in Automotive
User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing
Machinery, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376816
Imagine back in the days when calculators were just invented. An 8 year old kid might have the similar complain: “my classmate finished a 4 digits number multiplication problem in 5 seconds which generally took 1mins.” People might say, in the long term, the kid who cheated would be less proficient in arithmetic, which turned out to be true. But when you think about it, it seems not the end of the world when most high schooler in US cannot do complicated arithmetic quickly and accurately without a calculator.
The kind of task is not the same. With a calculator, you are delegating a very specific, bounded, and well-defined task. Being unable to approximate non-integer square roots by hand isn't the same as not knowing what square roots mean or when they are applicable. However with LLMs, people are often (trying to) delegate their executive-function and planning.
Another way to tell that the tasks are qualitatively different is to look at what levels/kinds of errors users will tolerate. A company selling calculators that gave subtly but undeniably-wrong answers 5% of the time would rightfully go bankrupt.
If you want to compare LLMs to something of yesteryear, it's closer to hiring someone to do the work for you: That's always been considered cheating, regardless of how cheaply the accomplice works or how badly they screw up.
Even today though you’re still taught arithmetic without a calculator. My kids have spelling words even though we have spell check.
Why? Because otherwise they’d have no idea if the answer provided to them is “correct”. As the saying goes, garbage in garbage out. You type the wrong numbers into the calculator ? How would you know the answer is also wrong unless you knew “about” what the answer should be?
To my knowledge, even before HP-48 level calculators came in the classroom nobody cared about arithmetic past middle school. The core of the teaching was proofs and a lot more theory, and that went on into CS for me.
I'd compare it to the ability to write and run basic assembly. We did it, and got checked on it, but that was not what we were there for.
I have a feeling this is somehow different. The tool is broad enough, that I don't have to think myself in a wide variety of tasks, not just one. Which hurts my intelligence way more.
Yeah in your situation the student who used a calculator to avoid learning literally all arithmetic, to include basic multiplication tables, is going to be poorly served by their teachers. What the hell are you on about
For navigation in particular you'd use capital D to discard the current buffer
and return to the previous page. There's also , (comma, back) and
. (period, forward), which non-destructively cycle through the stack.
(Well, it's really a tree, but the UI mostly treats it as a stack.)
I don't buy the argument because the world around us is build for human, we'd better build humanoid robots. Robots with belted wheels or 4 legs can handle stairs, ramps, uneven terrains well, easily and fast. Installing a couple of robot arms on it, you have much more robust robots. Spending so much effort just to solve the moving and balancing is a waste of money and talent.
The way it comes across to me is it's about the marketing, and target audience. The average family isn't getting these things in 'their home'. The economy is shifting more and more to luxury good sectors exclusively, and making them humanoid helps with justifying their high price, and chasing investor money.
BTW, behavior economics people like DAN ARIELY in this article got bad reputation after being found fabricating data on the research about honesty https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1190568472