What I mean is that a 70% score is meaningless to me. I need to know the movie genre, the audience score, the age of the movie and then I basically do a “lookup table” in my head. And I have that lookup table because I’ve looked up every movie I’ve watched on RT for 15 years so I know how the scores correlate to my own personal opinions.
As an example: the author said that critic scores should align with audience scores but no that’s not true at all. Critics tend to care more about plot continuity, plot depth and details while the audience tends to care about enjoyability. Both are important to me so I always look at both scores. That’s why a lot of very funny comedies have a 60-69% critic score but a 90%-100% audience score — because it’s hilarious but the plot makes no fucking sense and has a million holes. And if you see a comedy with 95% critic but 70% audience, it will be thought-provoking and well done but don’t expect more than occasional chuckles.
That's like saying 99.99% of the food people eat consists of protein, carbohydrates, fats, and/or vegetables and therefore isn't novel. The implication being a McDonald's Big Mac and fries is the same as a spinach salad.
The only way someone could believe all food is the same as a Big Mac and fries is if this is all they ate and knew nothing else.
Hyperbole never ends well and neither does assuming novelty requires rarity or uniqueness, as distinct combinations of programmatic operations which deliver value in a problem domain is the very definition "new in an interesting way."
Just like how Thai noodles have proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and/or vegetables, yet are nothing like a Big Mac and fries.
The equivalent of not using LLMs in your workflow as a software engineer today isn't eating whole foods. That might have been true a year ago, but today it's becoming more and more equivalent to a fruit only diet.