I'd highly recommend a checkout flow where a user clicks a picture of their bookshelf, and the app automatically extracts the titles, versions, publications etc. I'd be interesting to know how people use your product depending on the "size" of their libraries... cheers and good luck!

I don't evaluate the nature of the gain before deciding whether AI will be worth it. Fact is I do not know prior to some use.

I suppose the better question, given the above is how I decide to try it.

I wait until I have both time and a purpose to gamble with. When both become available, I will make an ernest attempt. I may make several.

The process is not a whole lot different than it has always been for me and new tools and tech. One simply has to give it a go to understand value.

Use cases are in other comment.

I am curious if using AI has changed the fundamental ways in which you view "effort" and "value" from pursuing a piece of work.

Are there are new kinds of challenges that come up when you're using some new AI tools?

I find the analogy to candy particularly interesting. The default comparison being that "too much of it is bad for you". Do you feel that you are putting on "cognitive weight" as a result of using AI?

Funny that I'm exploring the impacts of over-dependance/reliance on AI tools, and made a mistake because of the same. Will certainly proof-read after using speech to text!

and yes, extent*

What are some ways in which you have seen the perceptual abilities of coworkers erode over time?

An efficiency oriented logic makes us think that we're getting the work done "faster", and it "feels" like faster time to market, but in reality you experience a slowdown and a decline in quality...

PS: my own dependance on Wispr (a speech to text dictation tool) changed the way I write / interact with computers - my over-reliance meant I didn't proofread the title, and the "EXTEND" sticks out like a sore thumb...

I took a course awhile back taught by a retired military professor on communications and it was eye-opening. He covered what you would expect but with a slant towards 5GW, irregular warfare, political warfare; and heavily referenced Gershanek as a supplemental book; which is published by Navy Press. (https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Political%20Warfare_web.pd...)

Communications holds a privileged position that is tied strongly to and influences our individual psychology and identity.

Reflected appraisal is how we adopt culture from our parents, and it can be manipulated to distort that in ways that are harmful, if you understand the mechanics; and distortions cause psychological stress (the basis for torture), which can be used for malign influence, destructive interference of core identity, compulsion, or torture.

This along with other structures, elements, and clustering, can cause changes where if you aren't mindful of your environment, you don't recognize its happened, all you have is confusion, as your identity/soul gets pealed back and hollowed out, and this is the basis for how cult programming, and the related involuntary hypnosis works in practice. The same goes for PoWs from the 1950s.

There's quite a lot of material on this if you know where to look.

> Some ways in which you have seen the perceptual abilities of coworkers erode over time?

This is going to sound very subjective, but their overall cognitive speed has decreased dramatically. When you learn a skill to the point where its automatic, you can get a good flow going from a to b to c pivot to e, etc with no delays; and they struggle with each step/connection, each reasoning portion. Almost like there's interference, but its persistent and consistent; and they either don't notice, or they get defensive.

When they need to make a determination or design decision, they will miss the pivots, and not account for things that lead to significant mistakes which would never have happened before.

The solutions they come up with are for the most part no longer creative. They used to take functional structures they had collected and knew well that worked, and repurpose them, or apply them in ways that were quite creative towards a problem that they defined. Now they largely don't; and the definition of the problems they define are only slightly better than the LLM at this point; it used to be much better.

A lot of due diligence is also no longer being done. When asked about specific things, instead of being able to answer, they get confused, sometimes even incoherent, behaviors that seem very dementia-like, but these are guys almost fresh out of college in their mid 20s, and they aren't on drugs (we are all tested regularly).

There are ways people can be blinded, where they will adopt a misleading stance based upon structure (without any reasoning), even very intelligent people.

I'm of the opinion the inconsistency of the LLM's responses which are treated as communication, are gradually damaging people. Incidentally, people who have had a lot of exposure also have stopped taking on the more difficult or challenging tasks.

GPT allows me to ask questions and provide the right kind of "connecting" bridges between two concepts I was not earlier aware of. It has made recursive forms of learning very easy for me, when I can articulate the "what" but lack a clear understanding of "how".

Once you’re comfortable with the basics by all means read the table of contents to know what you don’t know. I recommend this especially when dealing with databases, it’s amazing how many people never advance past the apprenticeship part of learning software engineering.

That depends on both the subject and the person. Some learn better by understanding the fundamentals first. Some subjects (in CS/SE as well) might not even be approachable without it.

The way dosco189 is using GPT is perfectly fine. They aren't letting GPT do all the work for them, they're letting it explain how concepts relate to each other, something you often will not find in the documentation.

Gpt3.5 is like super Google, and gpt-4 is like a polymath in everything intern. Learning has never been easier for me, I'm stoked.

If you disliked a certain teaching style before you were basically screwed. I've learned some languages purely because the documentation was fun for me personally.

In the real world - both can happen simultaneously.

When interest rates rise, not only does higher cost of borrowing discourage investments and spending (an attempt to kill demand to bring down prices) it also reduces the money supply of the economy.

The money supply refers to all the liquid assets and cash that are in circulation in a country's economy. It is important because it is closely related to the credit market.

But money supply works in conjunction with market risk - which often branches out to two functions - liquidity preference and risk premium. The former is a theory that suggests that an investor might prefer 6% over 10 years than 3% over 5 years. The latter suggests that one investor might pick the 3% (lower yield) option because it has better risk premium - say the 6% is a bond in a DVD store, and the 3% is a government bond (example).

What we're witnessing now is the spiralling, second order effects of rising rates - which on the one hand attempt to kill demand and curb prices for consumer goods, but on the other, affect the money supply and force investors to rebalance their portfolio and start evaluating different risk premiums.

The Fed has dug itself into a hole because monetary policy changes have massive spillover effects into other areas of the economy, not just inflation and cost of borrowing, but also things like how participants in the economy view liquidity and risk premiums.

Can't A/B test monetary policy, or life. Institutions, like people, will learn to face the consequences of their actions and learn to live with their choices.