I just tried in Portuguese, and it introduces itself as ChatGPT. I was going to ask what can this do that ChatGPT can’t, but no need to answer now I guess.
The deeper issue is that your product is one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook, not that users can find out you're one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook.
Very curious to know where you have been in the last few years for your to regard openai.com/chat as something known only to specialists and wholesalers. To stick with the sausage-making analogy: this is like someone selling costco hotdogs in the parking lot out of the back of a van for 25% markup because they pre-squeezed the ketchup on it.
How many people in the costco parking lot do you think there are that want costco hotdogs but are unaware of the existence of costco, costco hotdogs, ketchup, and what they cost?
but users do care eventually. they just don’t yet have the vocabulary that “other sausage makers” do. dismissing these concerns implies that outcomes matter and provenance doesn’t, which may be convenient if you’re building wrappers, but it’s corrosive if you care about ecosystems, incentives, and long-term quality when the app is compared to others in the market.
that app is not the only app in the market that focuses on conversation. feedback like this is worth taking seriously rather than waving off.
Cute parable but most rely on child sweatshop labor. Users express "thoughts and prayers" level of care if pressed, but not take up a trend of sewing their shirts to spare kids they will never meet RSI.
Noting competition exists seems focused on the outcome of making money. An obligation that exists in an exploitative economy. Where's your concern for the provenance of such obligations?
Yeah. Every expression of concern is probably something like social desirability bias, appearance of concern while sticking with status quo real effort of zero change. Low effort rhetorical "care".
People express concern about global warming and drive off in their SUV. They're just parroting social script.
They also started to support censorship and government approved social media content.
See the recent thread about Nepal banning many apps and the comments are full of people saying that the EU should do the same or require that the content be even more moderated on all the platforms.
It's very sad to see.
I come here for the hacker news but it seems we are being overrun by a new kind of people who love when the EU intervenes to "regulate" the markets and fully believe that the EU is "pro" privacy (TM) and can't wait to impose new regulations all the while it's actually working to undermine encryption for everyone in Europe.
I guess the old saying is true, War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
But the trains in Cuba used standard gauge. And the early trains in the north of Spain used (and still use) a narrow-gauge. It was when the central government decided to build a nation-wide network that the Iberian-gauge was chosen, making it incompatible with both the pre-existing Spanish railways and other continental European railways, in the infamous "Informe Subercase" [1]. It is the perfect example of design-by-committee, in which no technical reasons are given other than there are wider and narrower gauges, so they choose an arbitrary middle ground.
Which of course makes it ironic that it says "We ought to be able to sort pretty fast, by now, using a Standard Library sort."
The C++ standard promised (since 1998) that the provided sorts are O(n log n).
But in fact popular C++ implementations ignored this and shipped quicksort - after all it's "pretty fast" but unfortunately this means if bad guys can choose your input (or you get unlucky) you get O(n squared)
Gradually they fixed this, libc++ updated to Introsort (last century's best attempt to do this) in 2021. In response to a ticket opened by Orson Peters.
These days you're also starting to see a trend towards the Rust-style "fast sort which implements a wide contract" design even in C++ implementations. Rust's sort doesn't actually promise this wide contract arrangement, but it does promise safety and the wide contract turns out to be the simplest way to do that.
What I mean there by "wide contract" is that these sorts don't blow up if your ordering rule is nonsense. They can't "sort" successfully because your ordering rule is nonsense, if A > B && B > A then too bad, we can't sort A and B. But they can and do gracefully give up, while many older C++ stdlibs just cause uncontrolled mayhem in this case.
I'm pretty sure that introsort was already implemented in the original STL last century.
In fact the standard didn't require O(log n) untill C++11 as all implementations were already using introsort, so allowing the previous more permissive O(n^2) bound was no longer necessary.
I don't know which is the "original STL" in this context. Alexander Stepanov's proposal of a standard template library for C++ pre-dates Musser's invention of introspective sorting (introsort). Stepanov is a smart guy but he's also somewhat famous so I'd guess if he invented it first we'd know that.
As I said, Orson filed a bug in LLVM bugzilla for libc++ going quadratic for adversarial input in 2014, and it was eventually fixed (by using introsort) in 2021.
There's a fun sideshow in that ticket, remember Orson actually wrote what is probably the best general purpose unstable sort at the time - but all he's done is open a ticket saying libc++ doesn't meet the minimum requirements. After a while, with the team having dragged their feet and still not even landed the patch to just use introsort somebody pipes up to report that they have benchmarked sorts and actually libc++ is faster than other popular C++ sorts (in their benchmark). So, Orson politely asks them to try PDQsort. That's the first time he explicitly mentions his Pattern Defecting Quicksort in the ticket, and maybe a harried LLVM bug handler wouldn't notice who filed the bug until then. Just another name.
But it's OK, the LLVM devs are unperturbed and ignore him, focusing instead on the minutiae of the performance numbers for their known defective unstable sort. Year later somebody eventually adds introsort to libc++ and closes the defect ticket. Nobody answers Orson's question, the answer of course is "Oh, yours is much faster".
Musser and Stepanov were working together on the STL. I think they were both at SGI at that time, and introsort was integrated into the SGI STL (around the same time the STL was standardized, I guess introsort was too new to require it in C++98); from there introsort made it into most other standard library implementations which are directly derived from SGI STL.
libc++ is notable for being one of the few from-scratch implementations.
