Bookrank: a directed graph of book mentions in another. Amazon & Google Books did this 10+ years ago, but it’s gone. Anyone know why?
Didn’t @AnthropicAI/@OpenAI scan all books too? #want
Hi @audible_com. Many non-fiction authors quote other books. If you captured and surfaced those intelligently, it would lead to more revenue… at least from me. Anyone else?
Clips are ok, but my AI bots afaik can’t listen to the full content. Is there another solution? Do I have to leave Audible entirely?
Hi @audible_com. Many non-fiction authors quote other books. If you captured and surfaced those intelligently, it would lead to more revenue… at least from me. Anyone else?
Clips are ok, but my AI bots afaik can’t listen to the full content. Is there another solution? Do I have to leave Audible entirely?
TIL Siri does read the transcripts of audio messages, not video messages, as context to answer questions like “what did John say last week about dinner?”
Seems like a video transcript can happen locally too? Maybe iOS 28?
The last time a new machine threatened a third of American jobs, we reinvented how we educated our kids.
That bet sparked an epic 100-year run.
It is time to make it again.
Homo sapiens: ~300,000 years.
Farming: the last 4%
Industrial Revolution: the last 0.09%
Internet: the last 0.01%
ChatGPT: the last 0.001%
Keep scrolling. Nothing to see here.
Nobody calls themselves an "internet company" anymore. Nobody brags about a "mobile app." The slogan always disappears when the better product just wins.
Everyone hates "AI."
Let’s skip to the end and stop using the hated word now. It isn’t helping.
I was by myself in a Waymo on my phone and a cop just drove by and I panicked lowered my phone thinking I might get a ticket for being on my phone in self driving. 😂
The reasons why it works are varied I think… and I’m happy to discuss with anyone who is open to progress… but that was not the point of my thread.
I questioned the goals behind the negativity of that NYT article.
To your original point: Ironically, the guides are a potential solution to less engaged parents at scale.
I’ll say it again. The secret at the “AI school” @Alphaschool isn’t obvious. It’s not the AI, it’s the human guides.
But that is only possible b/c the software exists.
Explained well below.
Everyone wants to talk about the AI @Alphaschool, and it’s understandable, because the software is impressive and continuously improving…but my daughter went from hitting her learning goal 0 days a week to all 5 a week in a month, and the difference came from her guide. 🧵
If they made ______ better with AI… so many people would hate it or be scared.
Fill in the blank. Doesn’t matter what word.
It’s not the first time we’ve built things we didn’t understand the future impact of.
But we are all still here because humans want to be alive.
There’s proof we have figured it out so far.
The title of the NYT article was: “Students at an A.I. School Were Supposed to Learn Faster. Many Aren’t.”
One could also say: “Students at an A.I. School Were Supposed to Learn Faster. Some Are.”
Why are we discrediting attempts at improving education?
Is it perfect now? Clearly no.
Also, it’s not being forced on anyone. Some parents are choosing to take the risk of teaching their kids in a new way. And for some of those families, it’s working.
So why is this article so negative? What does the author @DanaGoldstein gain?
I sincerely don’t understand.
The recent NYT article leaned negative without much substance. Even the title.
And why mention an imprisoned startup founder, just because she spoke highly of a fellow female founder in relation to the school? A very strange attempt to discredit by association?