So are photos that are edited via Photoshop not art? Are they not art if they were taken on a digital camera? What about electronic music?
You could argue all these things are not art because they used technology, just like AI music or images... no? Where does the spectrum of "true art" begin and end?
They aren't arguing against technology, they're saying that a person didn't really make anything. With photoshop, those are tools that can aid in art. With AI, there isn't any creative process beyond thinking up a concept and having it appear. We don't call people who commission art artists, because they asked someone else to use their creativity to realise an idea. Even there, the artist still put in creative effort into the composition, the elements, the things you study in art appreciation classes. Art isn't just aesthetically pleasing things, it has meaning and effort put into it
GraphQL was created to solve many different problems, not just overfetching.
These problemes at the time generally were:
1) Overfetching (yes) from the client from monolithic REST APIs, where you get the full response payload or nothing, even when you only want one field
2) The ability to define what to fetch from the CLIENT side, which is arguably much better since the client knows what it needs, the server does not until a client is actually implemented (so hard to fix with REST unless you hand-craft and manually update every single REST endpoint for every tiny feature in your app). As mobile devs were often enough not the same as backend devs at the time GraphQL was created, it made sense to empower frontend devs to define what to fetch themselves in the frontend code.
3) At the time GraphQL was invented, there was a hard pivot to NoSQL backends. A NoSQL backend typically represents things as Objects with edges between objects, not as tabular data. If your frontend language (JSON) is an object-with-nested-objects or objects-with-edges-between-objects, but your backend is tables-with-rows, there is a mismatch and a potentially expensive (at Facebook's scale) translation on the server side between the two. Modeling directly as Objects w/ relationships on the server side enables you to optimize for fetching from a NoSQL backend better.
4) GraphQL's edges/connections system (which I guess technically really belongs to Relay which optimizes really well for it) was built for infinitely-scrolling feed-style social media apps, because that's what it was optimized for (Facebook's original rewrite of their mobile apps from HTML5 to native iOS/Android coincided with the adoption of GraphQL for data fetching). Designing this type of API well is actually a hard problem and GraphQL nails it for infinitely scrolling feeds really well.
If you need traditional pagination (where you know the total row count and you want to paginate one page at a time) it's actually really annoying to use (and you should roll your own field definitions that take in page size and page number directly), but that's because it wasn't built for that.
5) The fragment system lets every UI component builder specify their own data needs, which can be merged together as one top-level query. This was important when you have hundreds of devs each making their own Facebook feed component types but you still want to ensure the app only fetches what it needs (in this regard Relay with its code generation is the best, Apollo is far behind)
There's many other optimizations we did on top of GraphQL such as sending the server query IDs instead of the full query body, etc, that really only mattered for low-end mobile network situations etc.
GraphQL is still an amazing example of good product infra API design. Its core API has hardly changed since day 1 and it is able to power pretty much any type of app.
The problems aren't with GraphQL, it's with your server infra serving GraphQL, which outside of Facebook/Meta I have yet to see anyone nail really well.
Please please please, if you have young kids learning to read or who will need to soon, educate yourself by listening to the "Sold a Story" podcast from NPR (it's on Spotify and other places).
There is so much bullshit out there about how kids should be taught to read, and too many schools unfortunately still use wrong methods disproven by science.
What works is phonics, old, tried and true. If your school isn't teaching it, you need to do it yourself at home or your kids risk never being good readers.
I used OVH years ago when "the cloud" wasn't a thing. Always super reliable. Always super pro. You love to see good competition in this type of market.
Oh great another device that has access to way too much. I skipped the "smart speaker" that listens to all your conversations phase, I will skip this one too, thank you very much.
Since there is no chemical or biological test one can do to confirm a schizophrenia diagnosis, it's a subjective diagnosis by practitioners, treating such subjective diagnosis with powerful brain-chemistry altering drugs. Worse, we do not yet know whether these new drugs will be easy to get off of. Some of the other anti-psychotic type medication is VERY hard to get off of, such as abilify, where most drug treatment centers will not deal with Abilify withdrawals or take on those patients because those are so severe (extreme violence, self harm, etc during withdrawal).
Until Psychiatry can reform itself to become a real science, using the scientific method (repeatable, provable results and not just a "theory of how brain chemistry maybe works sorta but we're not sure"), it will continue to just be a big cash cow for Big Pharma while hooking many patients who do not need these drugs onto them for life, while failing to effect ANY cure on the things they are treating (Have you heard of someone getting "better" after taking anti-depressants and being able to come off them? No. They have to take them for life. That's not a cure.)
> Have you heard of someone getting "better" after taking anti-depressants and being able to come off them? No. They have to take them for life. That's not a cure.
Some people with acute depression can take the meds, work on the underlying issues and taper off, yes.
People with chronic depression likely need to take the meds for life.
People with type I diabetes can't get insulin one time either. People with allergies often take the allergy meds when exposed to allergens, which is always for some.
That's not big pharma being greedy, that's a chronic condition requires chronic treatment.
I'll raise my hand here. Took antidepressants for a year. Successfully weaned off of them. Have not had recurrence of symptoms.
I needed the boost to be able to get out of bed often enough to do the work in therapy. That led to being able to take other actions that helped my brain chemistry too, like eating better food, which reduced inflammation, and getting outside more often.
My doc said her experience was about half and half. Half of people were able to wean off successfully. Half ended up deciding it was better to stay on.
My experience was the same; they were like a bandage we put on to allow us to heal without infection, for me SSRIs were a mental bandage so I could heal enough to get to a psychologist. I came off them, and was fine. My situation is confounded by my buprenorphine script though, as it's known to be a reasonbly effective anti-depressant in it's own right, albeit via a completely different mechanism (it's an opioid-receptor agonist, partial agonist and antagonist. Weird drug)
This is so misguided that it's hard to even know where to begin. People who develop high blood pressure without a known underlying cause take a pill for it every day for the rest of their life. You could say the same thing, they're not cured, but what actually matters is that they get to live a full life, unconstrained by the disease even if we don't know the underlying cause. Of course it would be better if we were more advanced of a civilization and figured it out, but the important thing is that these people get their lives back.
We don't have cures for diabetes, HIV/AIDS, allergies, plenty of ailments. Having treatments is totally valid even if they are taken forever.
People with the guidance of their doctor stop taking antidepressants all the time. External factors aren't static and often these can change. (separately or because of the treatment)
You do not need to stop treatment unless you and your doctor have decided it is going to be better for you.
Another point I'd make is that we don't have exact mechanisms for action in other treatments like paracetamol. That doesn't make it invalid treatment.
i'm curious what is the longest conversation you've ever had with an untreated schizophrenic person?
it's so obviously a "real disease" even if we don't fully understand the biological basis. it's subjective but honestly, there are just a ton of completely obvious cases.
abuses of the psychiatric system are very bad, but schizophrenia is so so clearly real.
> Have you heard of someone getting "better" after taking anti-depressants and being able to come off them? No. They have to take them for life. That's not a cure.
There is no medicine in the world that you can take for a limited time to fix problems forever. That's not how medicine works. That's not how the world works.
An enlarged salience network may be responsible for depression in some patients[0]. Some individuals are pre-disposed to being depressed and it may be a chronic condition, like any other chronic condition. For others, it could "simply" be a chemical imbalance that taking medication for a set period of time resolves (lucky them).
I work as an EM scribe and routinely see patients experiencing psychotic episodes. My background is in neuroscience and I'm interviewing for med school right now.
> it was recently proven that there is little to no evidence that serotonin levels are linked to depression
This has been the consensus of the psychiatric community for the last 20+ years. The serotonin hypothesis was heavily pushed in marketing as a way to medicalize depression and convince people to seek treatment for it. Probably a net positive when it comes to reducing stigma, but few people have been seriously arguing the serotonin hypothesis. As it takes about a month for effects to kick in, most people believe that it's compensatory changes to the brain that happen in response to upregulation of serotonin, such as downregulation of 5ht2a which has an overdensity in people with depression.
> Since there is no chemical or biological test one can do to confirm a schizophrenia diagnosis, it's a subjective diagnosis by practitioners
This is true to some degree - we don't have a blood test or an fmri scan that will definitively point to schizophrenia, the diagnosis is (for now) based on DSM criteria and by thoroughly ruling out other causes of schizophrenia. We do have tests for a number of other causes of psychosis, like lumbar punctures for NMDA-receptor encephalitis.
I'd like to emphasize that there are MANY diseases and conditions that we treat empirically for based on subjective symptoms which are just as real as schizophrenia. There are no tests we can perform for concussions or migraines. The brain is very challenging to perform tests on because of the blood-brain barrier and the skull.
> Worse, we do not yet know whether these new drugs will be easy to get off of.
Cholinergic drugs are VERY well understood and used in the treatment of a number of diseases. This "new" drug is a drug that was discovered 20+ years ago and is being used in a creative way to mitigate its GI side effects. Everything so far points to this being more effective at treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (loss of motivation, cognitive impairment), with milder side effects (some mild GI issues which typically resolve after a few days), which is a huge deal considering how many people with schizophrenia quit dopaminergic drugs due to the side effects.
One of the biggest problems with our for-profit system is that schizophrenia is comparatively rare and largely affects those with a lower socioeconomic status, so there isn't a huge financial incentive to work on schizophrenia drugs. This one was being developed for another purpose entirely.
> Until Psychiatry can reform itself to become a real science, using the scientific method (repeatable, provable results and not just a "theory of how brain chemistry maybe works sorta but we're not sure"), it will continue to just be a big cash cow for Big Pharma while hooking many patients who do not need these drugs onto them for life, while failing to effect ANY cure on the things they are treating
It sounds like you have an ax to grind against the profession, but I can assure you that there is a huge need for it and that people largely see benefits from medication. For me, SSRIs got me stable and functional so I could better address the root causes of my depression. Psychiatric drugs aren't perfect, but for many people they're truly life-saving. There is evidence to support kindling in some diseases such as bipolar as well - that if you remain unmedicated, manic episodes become progressively worse as the brain becomes more damaged.
Additionally, psychiatrists treat more than just depression. Some specialize in sleep medicine, addiction medicine, toxicology. They are trained to tease apart primary depression from other non-psychiatric diseases masquerading as a psychiatric disease. I saw a patient once who had been treated with a number of antipsychotics by his PCP and mid-level providers for persistent visual hallucinations. He met with a psychiatrist who tried increasing his anti-seizure meds, which resolved what was likely a recurrent partial seizure.
Every drug (sans some off-label use) goes through an FDA approval process and is, over the course of several years and millions of dollars, shown to be effective and relatively safe. I can assure you that psychiatry is as scientific as any other field of medicine. It's still in its infancy compared to some other specialties - the brain is a very complex organ and difficult to study - but we have as good of an understanding of most psychiatric illnesses as we do neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, which have been equally as difficult to study and treat.
Psychiatry is not even close to the most profitable area of American healthcare. Psychiatrists are one of the lower-earning specialties, and most people with mental illness never obtain treatment for it. Compare that to the 10% of all seniors who are on Eliquis to prevent blood clots, which costs a thousand dollars a month without insurance.
Trust me, if there was a way to permanently cure a psychiatric disease with one procedure or pill, we would all be in favor of it. Just because a diabetic needs to take insulin for life doesn't make endocrinology a scam.
> by thoroughly ruling out other causes of schizophrenia.
This never happens. "thoroughly" never happens. There are many examples of this. Recently a woman who was in psychiatric care fro over 20 years was finally diagnosed with Lupus (NPSLE) and cured.
They did not thoroughly do anything for me. I had to figure it out for myself.
> people largely see benefits from medication
I have a friend with depression and they had her on two adrenal receptor inhibitors (trazadone and risperidone) and she only got worse. They they went to ECT. She had severely constipation (treated with yet another drug, Linzess) and hypotension as well. They they started her on ECT, which did not work and she lost some memory.
The doctors failed to see that adrenal blockers could be causing her depression. I showed her the science, she asked her doc to stop those meds. She she no longer depressed nor has hypotension or consipation. And now she is angry.
They diagnosed her with schizophernia after they started her on antidepressants 25 years ago.
I am not saying medication are not sometimes useful, but I cannot count the times I have seen patients get worse on psych meds.
> He met with a psychiatrist who tried increasing his anti-seizure meds, which resolved what was likely a recurrent partial seizure.
You are still in med school so I hope you learn more. Anti Seizure meds have been the go to for these disorders fro years. They put me on depakote for my modo disorder 20 years ago.
> Psychiatry is not even close to the most profitable area of American healthcare.
Psych pharm businesses are very profitable though, and that is what we are talking about here.
> Trust me, if there was a way to permanently cure a psychiatric disease with one procedure or pill, we would all be in favor of it.
There is not pill, but there is a method. It is called Personalized Medicine.
And by the way KaRXT is not going to work. You should learn about receptor density changes when people take these receptor modulating drugs. This is why they always fail. There are better ways to manage the glutamate/GABA balance if that is the persons issue which it many cases it may not be, or may not be the fundamental problem. And if the acetylcholine is the problem in schizophrenia, why does M1 and M4 receptor in the body have bad side effects but whil in the brain it is good?
I will tell you why, they are using this drug to sedate the patient, not treat the patient.
After one meeting with her doctor, they gave my daughter antidepressants a the class of drug that’s meant to be taken for life. She was just an angsty teenager during covid.
She didn’t take them, shes fine, but yall are the devil frfr
Admit this: if you go to a doctor and say anything about the inside of your head that makes them uncomfortable you’re getting a chemical lobotomy immediately
It's significantly better now, because your daughter didn't get a real lobotomy. Which was the expected treatment for a young woman who misbehaves.
It's not typical to get antidepressants after a single meeting with a general practitioner. In fact, I don't even know if that can happen.
That being said, depression is real, and it does take lives. I've known many people who have successfully survived depression via SSRI's and no longer take them. That's the flip side you're not seeing. I've also seen unmedicated people take their lives.
I would argue that you're doing the same thing. You're hand waving and gaslighting people who were/are helped by SSRIs. You're appealing to a worst-case scenario, where someone who does not have depression is immediately prescribed medication (incredibly rare, in fact not sure if this can happen). And you're claiming a slippery slope by extrapolating this to other mental health issues and psychiatry as a whole.
That's because the sample size is probably small and for niche prompts or topics.
It's very hard to evaluate whether a model is better than another, especially doing it in a scientifically sound way is time consuming and hard.
This is why I find these types of comments like "model X is so much better than model Y" to be about as useful as "chocolate ice cream is so much better than vanilla"
And both flavors have a base flavor of excrement... Still, since I started using Claude 3 Opus (and now 3.5 Sonnet) a couple of months back, I don't see myself switching from them nor stopping use of LLM-based AI tech; it's just made me feel like the computer is actually working for and with me and even that alone can be enough to get me motivated and accomplish what I set out to do.
"it's just made me feel like the computer is actually working for and with me and even that alone can be enough to get me motivated and accomplish what I set out to do."
This is a great way to describe what I've been feeling / experiencing as well.
Just an update on my initial impressions of Claude 3.5 Sonnet. It's a better programmer than I am in Python; that's not saying much, but this is now two nights in a row I've been impressed with what I've created with it.
Morals is the code of conduct which a certain group adheres to in principle, without those rules having the force of law.
Ethics is about your own conduct or the conduct of a group and whether that conduct leads to survival or improvement for yourself and others.
Justice is when a larger group sets some rules (usually laws) because it believes those rules are beneficial to the group. When a member of that larger group fails to follow these rules set by the group, the group comes down on them to force them to apply the rules set out or to punish them for not applying these rules.
Morals is rules that can be enforced or not, ethics is about doing the "right thing", justice is about enforcing the laws set out by a larger group (like a city or state or country etc)
Define "things you don't need" ? That's a very subjective qualification. Even things which may only bring joy to the end consumer but very little objective value otherwise still have the effect of raising the spirits of said consumer a little (or a lot).
Like are Magic the gathering cards "something you need"? No. Do they bring endless joy to people who enjoy playing MTG, do they help build supportive communities, etc? Probably. Is that net good for the world? Probably.
This reminds me of the rant of a friend of mine who works on movies and TV shows. Someone was telling him the entertainment industry was useless and doesn't bring value to the world. He replied "cool so if we took away all your streaming platforms, all your music and all your books you'd be totally cool with that?" . Obviously the answer was no.
Example of making people buying things they don't need would include sth like: a person who cannot afford to buy an expensive phone every year, getting one because of peer pressure generated by millions of dollars spent on advertising. I'm not talking about someone who would buy the same phone for their own pleasure, I'm talking about someone who would become socially excluded or mocked by his friends at school.
I'm talking about a generated need and compulsion over pleasure.
Things you wouldn't seek out unless you were first shown an ad.
MTG is a great example of the opposite. You seek out something fun to do with your friends. You happen to see an ad for MTG as fulfilling that need. Fantastic! Advertising works as it should.
But if I buy a print-on-demand mug as a gag for my sister's birthday, do I really need to spend the rest of my life looking at ads for novelty mugs? The gag is done. Nobody needs more mugs.
You could argue all these things are not art because they used technology, just like AI music or images... no? Where does the spectrum of "true art" begin and end?