I also host my own email. In my case, Google always routes the first email I send to a new Gmail address as spam. After the recipient marks the email as good, future emails are received as expected. The only way around this is to advise the recipient via Gmail that I've set an email to them via a different route, so that they can check their spam and mark the email as good. This has been going on for at least two years.
Basically, Google are shadow-banning me till they get caught. I think this should be illegal.
Gmail always rejects the first email I send to a new gmail account. It does this every time – and has done for years – despite the fact I have sent emails to hundreds of other gmail accounts, and send emails to such accounts every day.
This is the reason I personally will not touch any Google services. And in business, I excise Google services as a priority. If a company cannot handle email in a civil manner, it certainly can't be trusted with anything of importance.
In LaTeX (and probably smartypants which is another of those bare pre-unicode ASCII to fancy text converters that can get stacked into markdown--but I can't remember if dash handling specifically is in there), "--" is en-dash and "---" is em-dash. The single "-" gives a hypen which is handled differently than an en-dash in typesetting.
So... that's just to say that people who are exposed to the sorts of can't-unsee-it-now typesetting OCD that LaTeX and various popular extension packages within that ecosystem exposes can learn to write write "--" as en-dash.
It's sort of like being unable to return to the blissful state of not being hyperaware that Ariel and Helvetica are different.
I agree. And this together with the obvious misunderstanding of Exhalation re: thermodynamics led me to put down the article.
I don't think the article was written by an LLM, but I'm convinced it was LLM-enabled. Which is a pity, because the author seems to have some interesting things to say. But that's the problem with leaning on an LLM: you lose your own voice, and good writing is centred around voice.
I thought the author was talking about Chiang's famous statement about LLMs being "lossy compression", and was ready to admit LLMs progress so fast this may not be the full picture.
However, this is not the author's actual criticism! TFA's states:
> I won't belabor obvious points like his nonfictional views on current-generation LLMs being surprisingly shallow [footnote]
Regardless of whether you agree or not with Ted Chiang, his article isn't about "current-generation LLMs"... it's about unchecked capitalism and the fears of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (at the risk of misrepresenting Chiang, he's saying it's ironic that Silicon Valley's worst fears resemble a sort of unchecked, rampant capitalism).
You don't need to agree with Chiang to realize he's article is sort of neutral on AI/LLM, and is actually a criticism of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs! TFA's author cannot critique his views on capitalism as "shallow" just because he disagrees with them, or misrepresent them as being about state-of-the-art AI/tech when they are actually about capitalism.
How could the article's author (and Scott Alexander) completely miss this?
He starts out by noting that the economy as an idea is very recent invention. And yet it tops the list of voters concerns.
"If you had told Mr Gladstone that "the economy has grown this year", he would not have understood what those words meant."
(William Gladstone was the British Prime Minister, on and off, between 1868 and 1894. He is considered to be one of the great British PMs.)
"Gladstone was the most financially literate statesman of the 19th Century. But the idea of something called "the economy", which could "grow" or "shrink", did not exist."
"It (THE economy) first appeared in a major manifesto in 1950 and didn't get its own section until 1955. That's also when terms like "economic growth" appeared in Parliament."
“What we now call "economics" was usually termed "political economy”. "Economy" was not a technocratic exercise, but a moral and political arena."
"… it subordinated a moral and political judgment (what is "good economy?") to a blunter question: how do we make "the" economy bigger? In reality, economic choices were still moral and political. But they were cast as technocratic questions about "competence" and know-how."
"(and) … it turned "the economy" into a "thing", to be weighed against other, different "things": such as "the environment" or "saving lives". And it encouraged a tendency to make "growth" the goal, without asking what was growing, why and to whose benefit."
I recommend reading the whole thread if you are interested to learn how we got here.
And looking forward?
"Recognising that our concepts are historically specific - that they have been different in the past and might be different in the future - helps us to imagine other ways of talking and thinking in the present. In an age of so many economic challenges, we surely need more of that."
Years ago, I went to live and work in Strasbourg. My French was… rudimentary, school-level, but after a few weeks I was picking up the rhythm and following along. Then the grand chef came up from Paris. During the night out entertaining him, I asked him to slow down a bit as I was struggling with his accent. He completely lost it, insulting the locals as peasants, and claiming the accent was theirs not his. Kind of put a damper on the evening.
Obviously the Marseille “dialect” is recognisable, but otherwise, travelling throughout France, and even the French-speaking parts of Switzerland, I could understand folk.
Proper old school investigative journalism, and he didn't hold back. Terrific scam, but, y'know, PayPal – I'm an old timer and remember the early days of that outfit. They're still blocked at the firewall from events 25 years ago.
Basically, Google are shadow-banning me till they get caught. I think this should be illegal.