For decades now, certain shops don't just sell stuff, they sell the “experience” of shopping there. I'd like to have what their PR departments are smoking.
It's _all_ experience. "Don't sell the sausage, sell the sizzle".
This is why car adverts are either belting round implausibly empty urban streets, or of Wankpanzers off-roading in a way almost no owner will actually do. "Buy this and this is the experience you're connecting with".
I'm rather confused by the article's point. It really reinforces that it's all experience, and really, material goods are just a means to an end.
Look - if I want to go experience Bali, it's not like I have to buy an aeroplane to do so. We _vastly_ overestimate the marginal utility of a more expensive car or some slightly different shoes in the sense of what additional experiences it's going to give us.
And, frankly, if you're claiming your shoe purchases increase your wellbeing because they don't hurt then I might suggest you pay more attention to purchasing the correct size for your feet (Stop buying from the Dolmansaxlil shoe corporation).
ISTR that materialistic humans being on a hedonic treadmill has quite a lot of evidence.
I'm not sure what you're pointing at, but all shops are selling a shopping experience.
Compare a hard discount grocery store to a regular supermarket, and we see the supermarket invisting significant money (and increasing prices) to improve the customer experience, and many customers willing to pay the price to not shop in what looks like a warehouse, even if they'd buy roughly the same products.
Yes, almost from the start, it sounded to me like something cooked up by marketing experts, either:
* to sell "experiences" to people because those marketers had services to sell;
* to sell "experiences" to people because the target demographic couldn't afford possessions; or
* more a psyop campaign, to placate demographics for whom the memes are that they'll never own a home, never be able to retire, etc.
Or all three.
Sure, there was the random carefree person who just liked to surf every day, and somehow ends got met, but for the rest of us, we were sold on expectations of homeownership, vehicles, consumer products. We can see that society is set up to expect people to have those things, and we can see how people's experience is generally better when they can afford those possessions.
It's not wrong either, though. Experiences regularly and radically change people: you might not have been longing all your life to own a French castle looking at rich pictures if you actually went into one and experienced the humidity, gloominess and sheer impracticality of it all first hand.
Sending people to the other side of the world is overrated, but confronting your world views with actual experiences is a price worth paying most of the time.
Same way experiencing at least once a well cooked, well made dish can effectively lead you cook it better for the rest of your life.
As anything, it varies from people to people, and there's no single truth out there.
It's not just about worldviews - it's having to face the unfamiliar and unpredictable that tends to change people. The best travels are voyages of discovery about oneself.
However, not every trip can be that. The more you travel, the weaker the experience becomes, and eventually one reaches a point where there is little left to learn by being on the road.
That quip doesn't really work like it does for its more usual target, the Eiffel Tower, because unlike the tower you also can't see the Pompidou Centre from pretty much everywhere in Paris, except right next to the Pompidou Centre
Hmm, possibly but I am thinking there are some certification requirements e.g. and you have to be able to use some API whether that is hypermedia or otherwise, which again credit card companies must agree to let you use.
You could maybe bypass them with a third party API, I'd have to do my research to see what the gotchas might be though.
That would never have flown in our (UK) class, where we grew up drinking Dandelion and Burdock pop
It was however playground lore that touching them and licking your fingers would make you wet the bed. Indeed the French name for them is literally that, pissenlit, which they must have had good reason to choose over the perfectly fine English name for them, dent de lion.
Okay, massive tangent, but it's been bugging me for a while and this has finally tipped me over the edge - why is it called personally identifiable information? That would be information that someone can personally identify surely? Shouldn't it be personally identifying information?
How would it be less likely to induce confusion? What is it even supposed to mean in that form? I had no idea what you were talking about until someone explained your error.
Your high latitude health service must be better than mine. I can hardly imagine my GP's receptionist's reaction if I tried to book an appointment to check my baseline vitamin D levels!
You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".
There was no law preventing people travelling or doing anything.
Boris said "it would be best if you don't" and then held parties. He got away with it because he didn't break any laws.
I had to travel for work, so I didn't even break guidance as in their advice, people who had to travel still could. No one ever checked which is my point.
No, it was law. Immoral law which deserved to be broken, but that is no consolation to the millions who suffered greatly by going along with it.
To hear one of the most shameful periods in our legal history being brushed off as couple of months of half hearted barely observed lockdown is pretty disturbing.
If I wanted to have a conversation about it, and you wanted to charge me a flat fee per utterance on the basis that you had to reread the text anew every time, I wouldn't be paying you at all.
If we were having such conversation via e-mail/IM and I learned that you're just asking me questions one by one in your replies, questions which you could've easily included in your first e-mail - then believe me when I say it, I would charge you the same way OpenAI does, and I'd throw in an extra 50% fee for being inconsiderate and not knowing how to communicate effectively.
Yeah, I can see this being useful for one-off queries, but don't they want to offer some sort of final training ("last-mile" I called it in another comment. I can't remember what the proper term is.) to companies to customize the model so it already has all the context they need baked in to every query?
They used to offer exactly this for fine tuning models. Never offered it after ChatGPT, I think the difficulty comes with fine tuning RLHF models, not obvious how to correctly do this.
It's unfortunate. There are some online tutorials that instruct you to embed all your code and perform top-k cosine similarity searches, populating the responses accordingly.
It's quite interesting if you can tweak your search just right. You can even use less tokens than 8K even!
I think he's talking about computational efficiency. If you're loading in 29k tokens and you're expecting to use those again, you wouldn't need to do the whole matrix multiplication song and dance again if you just kept the old buffers around for the next prompt.
