Thanks love these monthly articles highlighting new advancements. Although I do my best to keep up, there was one paper here that totally fell off my radar. Please keep it up!
Drawing inspiration from the Goldilocks principle, these mid-month updates featuring 20-25 summaries strike the perfect balance. These concise overviews are easily recommendable to all my friends, even those who lack the patience for lengthier, more detailed analyses or a greater number of summaries.
In an implicit nod to the Pareto principle, these summaries effectively capture the crucial points without being too few, too numerous, too lengthy, or too brief. Although I personally enjoy a more extensive and in-depth collection of summaries, I must admit that sharing such a comprehensive weekly newsletter with my friends would be futile, as they simply wouldn't read it.
Rewritten by Bard:
The mid-month updates with 20-25 summaries are just right, like Goldilocks' porridge. They are not too long, not too short, and not too many. This makes them perfect for sharing with friends who may not have the patience for longer or more in-depth summaries.
In a way, these updates are a tribute to Pareto's principle, which states that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. The updates focus on the most important news and developments, so they are a valuable way to stay informed without having to read through a lot of unnecessary information.
Personally, I would prefer more in-depth summaries, but I know that my friends would not be interested in reading them. So, I appreciate the balance that the mid-month updates strike. They are just right for me and my friends.
Rewritten by Claude (not Claude-instant):
Applying the Goldilocks principle, these biweekly updates with 20-25 summary points strike the right balance. Compared to extensive AI research reports, these digestible summaries are what I can recommend to all my friends, even those with little patience for lengthy, in-depth analysis or an overload of summaries.
In an unintentional nod to Pareto's principle, you capture the essential insights without being too sparse, excessive, long-winded or cursory. Personally, I prefer far more comprehensive and in-depth summaries...but I couldn't share that particular type of weekly newsletter with any of my friends. They would simply ignore such a publication.
My comment on the rewrites:
Claude missed it on the frequency of your updates. For my money, GPT-4 performed the best. YMMV.
Those of us who are paying attention are overwhelmed by the constant firehose of news in AI. Those who aren't paying attention simply have no idea how much the world is changing right now.
Yeah, my goal is to educate people about these present and emergent technologies. There are currently a lot of opinions from experts and nonexperts circulating on the internet -- related discussions also range from fear-mongering to raising valid concerns. In my opinion, the best way to make sense of it all is to become more familiar with the underlying technology. For example, there are a lot of handwavy hype articles. In my opinion, it's a better time investment to actually learn the technical underpinnings, which can empower someone to better see through the hype.
Thanks love these monthly articles highlighting new advancements. Although I do my best to keep up, there was one paper here that totally fell off my radar. Please keep it up!
Glad to hear! Planning to keep it going for sure!
Rewritten by GPT-4:
Drawing inspiration from the Goldilocks principle, these mid-month updates featuring 20-25 summaries strike the perfect balance. These concise overviews are easily recommendable to all my friends, even those who lack the patience for lengthier, more detailed analyses or a greater number of summaries.
In an implicit nod to the Pareto principle, these summaries effectively capture the crucial points without being too few, too numerous, too lengthy, or too brief. Although I personally enjoy a more extensive and in-depth collection of summaries, I must admit that sharing such a comprehensive weekly newsletter with my friends would be futile, as they simply wouldn't read it.
Rewritten by Bard:
The mid-month updates with 20-25 summaries are just right, like Goldilocks' porridge. They are not too long, not too short, and not too many. This makes them perfect for sharing with friends who may not have the patience for longer or more in-depth summaries.
In a way, these updates are a tribute to Pareto's principle, which states that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. The updates focus on the most important news and developments, so they are a valuable way to stay informed without having to read through a lot of unnecessary information.
Personally, I would prefer more in-depth summaries, but I know that my friends would not be interested in reading them. So, I appreciate the balance that the mid-month updates strike. They are just right for me and my friends.
Rewritten by Claude (not Claude-instant):
Applying the Goldilocks principle, these biweekly updates with 20-25 summary points strike the right balance. Compared to extensive AI research reports, these digestible summaries are what I can recommend to all my friends, even those with little patience for lengthy, in-depth analysis or an overload of summaries.
In an unintentional nod to Pareto's principle, you capture the essential insights without being too sparse, excessive, long-winded or cursory. Personally, I prefer far more comprehensive and in-depth summaries...but I couldn't share that particular type of weekly newsletter with any of my friends. They would simply ignore such a publication.
My comment on the rewrites:
Claude missed it on the frequency of your updates. For my money, GPT-4 performed the best. YMMV.
How would you rank these in order of impact on society, if you had to?
Interesting question! That'd would require a lot of speculation. I am glad that I don't have to, haha.
Those of us who are paying attention are overwhelmed by the constant firehose of news in AI. Those who aren't paying attention simply have no idea how much the world is changing right now.
Totally agree. It seems like we are in the midst of an extremely fast-paced "keep up or get left behind" phase.
Further, folks like us talking about it all the time is the very best thing we can do to help!
Yeah, my goal is to educate people about these present and emergent technologies. There are currently a lot of opinions from experts and nonexperts circulating on the internet -- related discussions also range from fear-mongering to raising valid concerns. In my opinion, the best way to make sense of it all is to become more familiar with the underlying technology. For example, there are a lot of handwavy hype articles. In my opinion, it's a better time investment to actually learn the technical underpinnings, which can empower someone to better see through the hype.
I think you got cut off at the end, but I really feel like our philosophies jibe.