Readit NewsThis is so true! On Windows (and WSL) it is also exacerbated by some packages requiring the use of compilers bundled with outdated Visual Studio versions, some of which are only available by manually crafting download paths. I can't wait for a better dev experience.
> Clinicians in our study worked without access to colleagues, textbooks, or even generative AI, which may feature in their normal clinical practice.
1. As I understand, it's very common for doctors to fall back on reference material in their practice, especially for the most complex cases. If all access to resources was cut off (as seems to be implied by the second quote), the comparison seems somewhat unfair.
2. What were the publication dates of the case records? I can't find this information, and it makes a difference if the NEJM case studies were in the LLMs' training data.
That's like letting one group of students have a strict closed-book exam, while another group can take the test as a group exercise and accessing any material they like, then claiming that closed-book exams lead to worse outcomes.
In a nutshell the study is just slop designed to get attention. The headline result is what they really want people to hear, and that's all the media will be repeating.
That is pretty much an accurate discription of what planes and birds do.
To plan means "to reason with intent".
That is very much not what LLMs do, and the paper does not provide evidence to the contrary. Yet it uses the term to give credence to it's rather speculative interpretation of observed correlation as causation.
Interestingly enough there is no definition of the term, which at least would help to understand what the authors actually mean.
I would be more inclined to take a more positive stance to the paper if it used more appropriate terms, such as call observed correlations just that. Granted that would possibly make for much less of a fancy title.
Don't understand how a private company like Astral is leading here. Why is that hard for the Python community to come up with a single tool to rule them all? (I know https://xkcd.com/927/). Like, you could even copy what Go or Node are doing, and make it Python-aware; no shame on that. Instead we have these who-knows-how-long-they-will-last tools every now and then.
They should remove the "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." from the Python Zen.