Oh yeah that reminds me. It seems to have killed (possibly with the help of AI summary in search) stack exchange. Iirc you can see the visit rates plummet into oblivion.

I think we have sufficient data to say that social health is at least very different now. See the our-world-in-data topic page. In particular, one-person households have doubled.

Some translation tasks. Some how-to stuff. I’m told folks like using it to generate say-nothing replies to say-nothing emails?

Humans emotionally bond pretty easily, no? Like, we have folks attached to roombas, spiders, TV shows, and stuffed animals. Having a hard time thinking of anything X that I don’t personally know a person Y with Y emotionally engaged with X. Maybe taxes and concrete?

shame we gutted social spaces.

It’s a pretty clear humble-brag, no? The launch was only botched because people loved the previous personality; it’s an estimate of how much people care about the product and how much price gouging they could do later.

No it wasn’t good for OpenAI. But I doubt it changed many investor minds.

One of those headlines that’s wrong, but by being said loudly enough makes itself more certainly wrong, and I want it to be wrong.

Weird.

From the article

used mathematics and game theory to model

This is a theory paper, not a study on the ground. It’s a reason to give honest pricing, but not new hard data on the practice. It also requires some (nontrivial, non obvious) assumptions about the kind of market. It really doesn’t seem to me that the assumptions hold for, eg, air travel.

I do hope the theory is correct irl; personalized pricing is gross.

whoa that’s amazing. Jellyfin does everything.