Even if AI tools (e.g. search or summarization) aren't perfect, neither are our current manual methods. Right now I feel there's a strong negative sentiment towards mistakes made by LLMs vs humans - when/if that sentiment fades, it'll be interesting to see how much work can be delegated to LLMs.
Humans have the ability to explain the thought process that led to the mistake, can provide confidence intervals, can learn from the mistake and can maintain a coherent position over time.
And right now the only work being delegate to LLMs are those where mistakes are tolerable e.g. copywriting, customer service.
There's a difference between guaranteed privacy and certifiable privacy. Yes, the government can request one's data. However, Apple's system would reveal those intrusions to the public, even if Apple themselves couldn't say it.
I do something similar for my notes, but instead converting to HTML! (e.g. https://cswartout.com/notes/cse422.html) I keep my notes as markdown in a repo, then "build" them onto a web server after pushing. I've found it easy to write and always accessible, which is nice.
There's two main ways to "add documents to LLMs" - using documents in retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and training/finetuning models. I believe you can use RAG with Ollama, however Ollama doesn't do the training of models.
You can "use RAG" with Ollama, in the sense that you can put RAG chunks into a completion prompt.
To index documents for RAG, Ollama also offers an embedding endpoint where you can use LLM models to generate embeddings, however AFAIK that is very inefficient. You'd usually want to use a much smaller embedding model like JINA v2[0], which are currently not supported by Ollama[1].
We shouldn't reduce or avoid removing any of the struggles you've brought up - those are real and we need to remove them.
With that being said, most of what OP said is true: Americans are in a good position because of many factors - national security being an important one. I interpret OP's comment not as a call to rest on the US's good position, but to fight for it and improve it. We can both hold that the US has major issues that need to be fixed, while saying we need to fight against countries that would work to destabilize the US.
If we don't fight for the struggles you've mentioned (and other ones!), the US won't improve. But, if we don't also recognize our worldwide position and work to prevent countries from destabilizing it, everything will get worse for everyone.
> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change.
I disagree, we can be recognize some aspects of a country and be thankful (fighting to keep the good we have) while still improving on others.
I hope it is clear I'm speaking in good faith
Your interpretation of my comment is spot on. I am concerned there won't be an america to improve upon. Once america is desrabilized you can't stabilize again. A world of russian, chinese and middle eastern dominance with a destabilized US is not good either for the civil rights concerns/improvements the person you replied to brought up.
A world with an America unchallenged by anything is also dangerous. Thats how we get a 20 year war with countless innocent lives destroyed, entire regions destabilized and a host of other terrible situations. The country is just that: a country, a collection of humans with human flaws. America at its best was when it was trying to prove the effectiveness of its system over others day in and day out because it was being challenged. Thats how we got a lot of the freedoms and benefits that we have now.
Agreed - the rebuttal comment you got had the example of "having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant". Russia has been is conducting influence campaigns to stir up these very problems! NatSec is important for these social issues too.
One of the big things to note is that Sparky plays very basic decks, with few complicated cards and combos. Rules-based AI could definitely play at a basic level using a beatdown strategy, but give it some sort of control/combo deck and it would struggle.
Hearthstone allegedly had bots hit Legend rank back in 2014 playing Aggro Shaman. Those were believed to be pretty simple rules bots, so yeah +1 that approach gets you pretty far if you have decks crafted for it.
My good-faith interpretation of your comment is: "Maybe learn to code (without external resources or tools)?" LLMs are another tool and resource, just like StackOverflow, linters, autocomplete, Google, etc. None of these tools are infallible, but they provide value. Just like all other tools, you don't need to use LLMs because of their issues - but we want them to be as useful as possible - what the author is trying to do.
