I'm reminded of the early days of personal computing when the proto-techbros were trying to appeal to women and suggested they could use PCs to store recipes.
As someone in the field of Radiology I can confirm there is a great divide in what current AI fanatics say that their programs can do versus what they actually do in the real world setting.
It's quite striking how bad the pull-ups example is! It provides basically no relevant information for a beginner - how are you supposed to progress through those variants? What's the difference between "strength focus" and "volume focus" and "full-body strength", particularly when the "program" already specifies (absolutely random) sets and reps? Are you supposed to do the "core exercises" (which all are pulling motions) in "Day 4 - Core and mobility"? There are no tips on how to engage your back or core in an actual pull-up! It is absolutely the case that the r/fitness wiki is written with far more care and consideration (and, as a result, is markedly more useful) that the entire ad.
And don't get me started on "I want a recipe that makes my date think she's dating ChatGPT". Are you going to ChatGPT some bullshit as well if she (because, of course, the character is a man and the date is a woman) is curious about what drew you to that dish? It doesn't even tell you how long to boil the goddamn pasta* or which pasta works best or which texture you want to aim for! If you want to look up a recipe, why would you want to use the one thing that is known to backfire spectacularly at that purpose?
* Actually it seems you're supposed to "boil pasta water", it would be fun to robotically follow this recipe and add the pasta at the specified step.
As long as it looks like an actual program with progression and already has one experimental success, at the very least it can't be worse than the ChatGPT one
Part of the problem may be that interesting use cases often require substantial user expertise to ensure nothing goes off the rails — a demand that doesn’t align well with the level of competence LLM promoters tend to project onto Chatbots.
What's your take, as a Silicon valley tech bubble insider, on the economics of these AI companies? I recently read Cory Doctorow's blog on this where he predicts almost all of the companies will collapse: https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/27/econopocalypse/
Greatest subtitle of the year?
I'm reminded of the early days of personal computing when the proto-techbros were trying to appeal to women and suggested they could use PCs to store recipes.
As someone in the field of Radiology I can confirm there is a great divide in what current AI fanatics say that their programs can do versus what they actually do in the real world setting.
It's quite striking how bad the pull-ups example is! It provides basically no relevant information for a beginner - how are you supposed to progress through those variants? What's the difference between "strength focus" and "volume focus" and "full-body strength", particularly when the "program" already specifies (absolutely random) sets and reps? Are you supposed to do the "core exercises" (which all are pulling motions) in "Day 4 - Core and mobility"? There are no tips on how to engage your back or core in an actual pull-up! It is absolutely the case that the r/fitness wiki is written with far more care and consideration (and, as a result, is markedly more useful) that the entire ad.
And don't get me started on "I want a recipe that makes my date think she's dating ChatGPT". Are you going to ChatGPT some bullshit as well if she (because, of course, the character is a man and the date is a woman) is curious about what drew you to that dish? It doesn't even tell you how long to boil the goddamn pasta* or which pasta works best or which texture you want to aim for! If you want to look up a recipe, why would you want to use the one thing that is known to backfire spectacularly at that purpose?
* Actually it seems you're supposed to "boil pasta water", it would be fun to robotically follow this recipe and add the pasta at the specified step.
I am almost compelled to post my own very successful pull-up progression program...
As long as it looks like an actual program with progression and already has one experimental success, at the very least it can't be worse than the ChatGPT one
Ohh you are not gonna like upcoming changes to chatgpt announced this week: https://x.com/sama/status/1978129344598827128
Part of the problem may be that interesting use cases often require substantial user expertise to ensure nothing goes off the rails — a demand that doesn’t align well with the level of competence LLM promoters tend to project onto Chatbots.
Agree agree agree
computer-botox
What's your take, as a Silicon valley tech bubble insider, on the economics of these AI companies? I recently read Cory Doctorow's blog on this where he predicts almost all of the companies will collapse: https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/27/econopocalypse/
If I had good takes about economics and slightly less rich aversion, I'd be so much wealthier...