I think this one way of looking at what your parent was describing.
They weren’t just saying ‘AI writes the boilerplate for me.’ They were saying: once you’ve written the same glue the 3rd, 4th, 5th time, you can start folding that pattern into your own custom dev tooling.
AI not as a boilerplate writer but as an assistant to build out personal scaffolding toolset quickly and organically. Or maybe you think that should be more systemized and less personal?
I had a very similar experience, watching it at Japanese camp when I was about 8. I had recurring dreams of a ship going down into a poison jungle for many years and vague memories of this movie.
I found it again when mail order Netflix first came out in my early 20s. It was like rediscovering my childhood and completing a character arc.
My (not a lawyer) understanding is "no", because Microsoft is not administering the model (making available the chatbot and history logging), not retaining chats (typically, unless you configure it specifically to do this), and any logs or history are only retained on the customer's servers or tenant.
Accessing information on a customer's server or tenant (I have been assured) would require a court order for the customer directly.
But... as an 365 E5 user with an Azure account using the 4o through Foundry... I am much more nervous than I ever have been.
Yes this is a reasonable way to misunderstand given the way we refer to “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”, but it does not map to the terms “hard scifi” and “soft scifi” in common usage.
It’s not exactly about rules consistency either as stated by the GP, though that’s part of it. It’s more about strong consistent application of scientific principles even theoretical or untested principles.
This is in contrast to futuristic fantasy with no real focus on the science. But futuristic or space fantasy can be very consistent just like magical systems in fantasy can be very consistent. Hard scifi has to be constrained by plausible consistent science and that science is typically a main character in the story, or even THE main character.
I don't know if it's a misunderstanding, or if usage is just very mixed and inconsistent. Both Wikipedia articles provide both definitions, and both claim that usage is sometimes contradictory and not at all rigorous.
> The complementary term soft science fiction, formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences,[6] first appeared in the late 1970s. Though there are examples generally considered as "hard" science fiction such as Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, built on mathematical sociology,[7] science fiction critic Gary Westfahl argues that while neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy, they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful.[8]
> The term soft science fiction was formed as the complement of the earlier term hard science fiction.
> The earliest known citation for the term is in "1975: The Year in Science Fiction" by Peter Nicholls, in Nebula Award Stories 11 (1976). He wrote "The same list reveals that an already established shift from hard sf (chemistry, physics, astronomy, technology) to soft sf (psychology, biology, anthropology, sociology, and even [...] linguistics) is continuing more strongly than ever."
Research anecdote here. I’m a psychologist in a different area and a friend who did his PhD in cocaine research with rats told me this.
Addiction is highly dependent on the immediacy of the drug’s effect on the brain. For this reason, people who smoke cocaine (directly or as crack) are highly likely to get addicted. It may be the majority. People who snort it are less likely to get addicted. And there are a lot of casual cocaine users (snorting) who do not develop a long term life altering addiction. I believe he (researcher friend) said it was 10-15% who go on to become addicted. Still substantial and dangerous but much less than smoking.
His research was looking at delayed onset of cocaine in rats after they pushed their cocaine lever. At longer delays more and more rats showed little interest.
This is part of the overall addiction picture. Decoupling drug use behaviors (smoking, snorting, and lever pressing) from noticeable drug onset prevents reinforcement of the behavior and makes addiction less likely, often much less.
This would explain why nicotine patches and gum would potentially be much less addictive than cigarettes.
I’m going to go ahead and generalize my own experience as an alcoholic, smoker, and coffee drinker with a highly addictive personality from a long line of addicts: It’s not remotely the same kind of addiction.
Waking up in the morning and finding I’m out of coffee is an issue on par with, I don’t know, waking up and finding we’re out of milk and I need to eat some toast instead of cereal. Not the way to start the day, but I’ll grumble and get through.
Waking up in the morning and finding out I’m out of nicotine is immediate 11/10 anxiety. My brain is focused only on how to get some. Can I make it to the store and back before my first meeting of the day? If it’s tight, I can be a bit late. If I can’t, I’m basically autopiloting myself through my morning until the first free minute I have to run out and get some. That is the _only_ thing on my mind.
From past experience, if I’m down to my last $10 and have the choice between food and coffee I’ll pick food. If I have the choice between food and cigarettes, I’ll pick cigarettes.
If I'm traveling, I'll take the risk that the hotel doesn't have coffee for some reason. I don't pack coffee in my suitcase. There's probably some mini-bottles or something in there though in case I can't get my hands on some alcohol along the way.
But cigarettes, not nicotine. I have used nicotine lozenges for weeks or months at a time when I need to concentrate on some critical projects and for me it has always been easy to stop, but I once was drinking 7 or 8 cups a day and decided I needed to stop and that took nearly a year and many terrible terrible headaches.
You'd be surprised! Some people have as hard a time quitting coffee as they do nicotine. And lots of people do coke and never become addicted. It varies a lot from person to person, which is a fact that is underappreciated. Luckily, there is a lot of research now to support this.
Agreed. I drink coffee because I like the taste and the caffeine gives a little boost. I could be said to be dependant on caffeine, as I get withdrawal symptoms on cessation (headaches) - but I feel no compulsion to drink coffee, as there would be with addiction.
It also has to do with the size of the dopamine impact on the brain. Andrew Huberman's metaphor about a "wave" really helped me understand the concept of dopamine addiction in the brain.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's called the metric system because the values were derived from the meter. Decimal time has nothing to do with the meter, and "decimal" refers to it being base 10.
This isn't totally true. Mass and volume measurements were indeed derived from the meter. A gram is a cubic centimeter of water. A liter is 1/1000 of a cubic meter. Apparently Celsius is derived from Kelvin (really just translated so 0 is the freezing point of water), which is derived using metric units in a formula that is a bit beyond me but available here:
If we’re talking about clarity I think there’s some merit to the claim. It has tense markers that English lacks which buys you information in the conjugation about tense, gender and speaker. And unlike other Latin languages you aren’t able to drop the subject and just rely on the verb to convey it which forces clarity one could argue. You get the best of both worlds for clarity though the worst of both worlds for conjugation complexity and overall verboseness.
At least that’s my attempt to defend the GP’s statement.
English has (at least) four constructs to talk about the past: "he went", "he was going", "he has gone", and "he used to go". All four mean something clearly different. French meanwhile only has "il allait" and "il est allé" (and, technically "il alla" though nowadays that is basically only used in writing and its meaning is not clearly distinguishable from that of "il est allé").
It's easy to find examples of distinctions made by French that English doesn't make, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that either language, overall, tends to express concepts more precisely than the other.
Yes, I am always worried about prequels for that reason, but I think I enjoyed this one more than the original. They are really very different in scope and story as you said, and the bittersweet quality of the connection between the two books enhances the ending of the prequel in my view.
They weren’t just saying ‘AI writes the boilerplate for me.’ They were saying: once you’ve written the same glue the 3rd, 4th, 5th time, you can start folding that pattern into your own custom dev tooling.
AI not as a boilerplate writer but as an assistant to build out personal scaffolding toolset quickly and organically. Or maybe you think that should be more systemized and less personal?