Readit NewsThe more I use claude code, the more frustrated I get with this aspect. I'm not sure that a generic text-based LLM can properly solve this.
That and other tricks have only made me slightly less frustrated, though.
Point remains though that 2020 is a statistical outlier election that resulted in a 22 million total vote count increase over 2016.
Joe Biden had signs of dementia in 2020 and barely campaigned publicly. Somehow this old bag with not one inspiring historical speech or rally, riveted voters to turn out in numbers higher than any president in history.
Somehow these same voters that were motivated to stop the orange man in 2020 disappeared in 2024, when orange man runs for a 3rd time.
2012 Obama and 2016 Clinton got roughly the same number of votes (~65M), somehow in 4 years time Biden was able to rally an additional 16 million to the polls, with his sheer intellect and brilliance and inspirational qualities.
And then his VP comes up 7 million short 4 years later against the same "existential threat", despite all the same provisions for mail in ballots etc being in place. It's like Covid restrictions were used as cover for massive voter fraud.
I don't think it's particularly complex, most people vote based on the tangible issues they're experiencing. It shouldn't be surprising that they voted against the incumbents each time. In 2020 they didn't like Trump's handling of COVID so they voted against him. In 2024 they didn't like Biden's handling of inflation so they voted against his VP. Just as some people were motivated to vote for those reasons (among others), many people lost their motivation to vote at all.
Regarding the difference between 2012 Obama and 2020 Biden, Trump also received more votes in 2020 than Obama did -- in fact, he surpassed Obama's vote total in 2024 as well. Trump in 2020 and 2024 even surpassed Obama's vote totals from 2008, even though Obama received 3.5 million more votes in 2008 than in 2012. Really, it's pretty simple, there were 16 million more people in the US in 2020 than 2012. Of course the raw vote numbers went up.
The vote totals aren't a strong point. In 2020 there were 152,320,193 votes cast between the two main candidates; in 2024 there were 155,508,985 votes cast. That is, more people voted in 2024 than in 2020, so claiming that 2020 was some statistical outlier with a bunch of extra votes doesn't really make sense.
This all feels like motivated reasoning.
2024: Harris 75,017,613 votes [2]
Where are you getting 14 million? The actual difference was barely even half that.
Me: How many R's in strawberry ChatGPT said: 3
Me: How many B's in blueberry? ChatGPT said: 2
Me: How many C's in coconut? ChatGPT said: 2
Me: How many D's in Diamond? ChatGPT said: 2
Me: How many A's in Banana? ChatGPT said: 3
https://chatgpt.com/share/6897cc40-6650-8006-aae3-ea2b8278d5...
As someone in an AI company right now - Almost every company we work with is using Azure wrapped OpenAI. We're not sure why, but that is the case.
Of course you could write in your own codes and make your own hacks but a lot of the time you ended up with garbled graphics or an unbootable game. They did keep this developer documentation to a minimum and this was before the internet. Although my local BBS had an ascii document detailing game genie’s internals and how to write your own codes, it was far from the reach of most 10 year olds
The game genie knockoff clone (I forget the name but remember the ads lol) had all of the codes in memory and as such gave you a menu to choose from
Amazon operated at a loss for 9 years, and barely turned a profit for over a decade longer than that. They're now one of the greatest businesses of all time.
Spotify operated at a loss for 17 years until becoming profitable. Tesla operated at a loss for 17 years before turning a profit. Palantir operated at a loss for 20 years before turning a profit.
And this was before the real age of Big Tech. Google has more cashflows they can burn than any of these companies ever raised, combined.
I’m an artist who’ve always struggled to learn how to code. I can pick up on computer science concepts, but when I try to sit down and write actual code my brain just pretends it doesn’t exist.
Over like 20 years, despite numerous attempts I could never get past few beginner exercises. I viscerally can’t stand the headspace that coding puts me in.
Last night I managed to build a custom CDN to deliver cool fonts to my site a la Google fonts, create a gorgeous site with custom code injected CSS and Java (while grokking most of it), and best part … it was FUN! I have never remotely done anything like that in my entire life, and with ChatGPT’s help I managed to it in like 3 hours. It’s bonkers.
AI is truly what you make of it, and I think it’s an incredible tool that allows you to learn things in a way that fits how your brain works.
I think schools should have curriculum that teaches people how to use AI effectively. It’s truly a force multiplier for creativity.
Computers haven’t felt this fun for a long time.
There is no reason to have cognitive dissonance over it.
1. Not seen browsing ”ai.dev”.
2. The text ”Imagen 4 is now generally available!” is spoken, not a comic caption.
3. Invalid second panel.
4. Hallucinates ”Meet Imagen 4 fast!”
5. Hallucinates ”It offers low..” etc. (this is the second part of a single sentence said by the cat)
6. Hallucinates ”You can export images in 2K!” (this sentence is not asked for)
7. Doesn’t have the cat and the dog in the fourth panel.
—
Here’s the gpt-image-1 counterpart with the issues I could find:
https://chatgpt.com/share/689f7e4b-01e4-8011-8997-0f37edf8c2...
1. The text ”Imagen 4 is now generally available!” is still spoken, not a caption.
2. ”low latency” -> ”low-laten”
(3. Has that ugly gpt-image-1 trademark yellow filter requiring work in post to avoid.)
I didn’t bring up the ”retro comic look” thing. I certainly think it’s an issue with Imagen 4’s version. It doesn’t look very old school at all. But I can’t judge the OpenAI one either on that, I’m no comic book expert, so I just skipped that one.