I didn't know what to expect, and this was an interesting read. What was the context for when and where it was delivered? EDIT: nm just saw the Fiction tag. Still interested in context though; I do not know who James Windrow is, except for what I can speculate on from this story.
In Anthropic's support page for "I want to opt out of my prompts and results being used for training" they say:
We will not use your Inputs or Outputs to train our models, unless: (1) your conversations are flagged for Trust & Safety review (in which case we may use or analyze them to improve our ability to detect and enforce our Usage Policy, including training models for use by our Trust and Safety team, consistent with Anthropic’s safety mission), or (2) you’ve explicitly reported the materials to us (for example via our feedback mechanisms), or (3) by otherwise explicitly opting in to training.
Notably, this doesn't provide an opt out method, and the same messaging is repeated across similar articles/questions. The closest thing to an opt out seems to be "you have the right to request a copy of your data, and object to our usage of it".
I see people upvoting this, and I think I can see some good insights in this post, but MAN are glowfics obnoxious to read, and this feels really hard to read in a very similar way. I'm sad it is not easier to read.
Something that may help build a better model/intuition is this video from Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGAhWgkKlHI
I mentally visualize the cold air as a liquid when I open the door, or maybe picturing it looking similar to the fog from dry ice.
Since it's cold, it falls downward, "pouring" out onto the floor, and probably does not take more than a few seconds, though I would love to see someone capture it on video with a thermal camera.
After that, I figure it doesn't really matter how long the door is open, until you start talking about leaving it open for 10+ minutes where you can then start to worry about the food's temperature rising, and the fridge wasting energy trying to cool the open space.
On the timescale of just a few moments while you grab stuff, the damage is already done once you open it the first time, and leaving it open or opening/closing it again doesn't really affect anything.
This is also why grocery stores and restaurant kitchens tend to have reach-in fridges, open from the top like a chest freezer, instead of vertical doors (though, that's also for convenience).
I don't think it would be TOO long, I happily read through very long posts on here.
However, that said, I was curious enough to read that blog post, and that's about the length and level of detail I expect in a normal short-to-medium size LW post, but it also stopped short of where I wanted it to. I hope that helps calibrate a little? I don't know how "typical" I am as an example LW reader though.
Oh, and because I know it annoys me when people get distracted away from the main question by this sort of stuff, question is "Can you share the experimental results with just enough explanation to understand the methodology", because I think everything else will flow naturally from questions about the experiment and the results.
I've been doing similar things with my day-to-day work like making stuff in CSS/Bootstrap or Excel, and my hobbies like mucking about in Twine or VCV Rack, and have noticed:
However, if you treat it almost like a student, and inform it of the errors/consequences of whatever it suggested, it's often surprisingly good at correcting the error, but here is where differences between how much it "understands" domains like "CSS" vs. "Twine's Harlowe 3.3.4 macro format" become easier to see- it seems much more likely to make up function and features of Harlowe that resemble things from more popular languages.
For whatever reason, it's really fun to engage it on things you have expertise in and correct it and/or rubber duck off of it. It gives you a weird child of expertise and outsider art.
I've been doing this for years! When I worked in an office, I had a set of metal chopsticks I was able to leave on my desk — metal was easier to clean.
RE:Footnote #4:
I'll come back to this at some point. Specifically, I'd like clicking that link either to take me to the correct note if it already exists, or CREATE the note if it doesn't exist, while triggering the Templater action that generates all the nice dynamic content on the Daily Note.
I found today, after following this tutorial (which is great, btw, with some tweaks for personal preference this thoroughly fixes everything I felt missing from Obsidian), that putting the template in both the "Daily Notes" template AND as a "Folder Template" made the yesterday/tomorrow links works as-is, with the file either being visited, or created with the template. My hypothesis is the template you put directly into the Daily Notes settings only triggers when using the "Open Today's Daily Note" button, so Templater's "folder template" trigger is needed.
In fact, it seems like the Folder Template is all you need, but I have a hunch that the "direct" Daily Note template might be faster in some cases? It's probably just a superstition, I don't know if there's a good way to test it.
EDIT: To make it immune to what setting you have for here new notes are created, I had to specifiy the full path in the template:
<< [[Daily Notes/<% fileDate = moment(tp.file.title, 'YYYY-MM-DD dddd').subtract(1, 'd').format('YYYY-MM-DD dddd') %>|Yesterday]] | [[Daily Notes/<% fileDate = moment(tp.file.title, 'YYYY-MM-DD dddd').add(1, 'd').format('YYYY-MM-DD dddd') %>|Tomorrow]] >>
The path and the daily note name format have to match whatever you've set up for Daily Notes.
All of their work is great, but for my favorite I highly recommend 'Ra', for similar reasons of feeling what it's like to interrogate your own thoughts, senses, and reality itself.
https://qntm.org/ra
Also this fun little story (Valuable Humans in Transit) about an AI: https://qntm.org/transi