Surprised they don't mention Bard anywhere in the article. I wonder if the NYT has worked out some sort of licensing deal with Google for Bard, or if Bard isn't trained on NYT data?
The lawsuit mentions this, so maybe they did work out some agreement to license their data: "For months, The Times has attempted to reach a negotiated agreement with Defendants, in accordance with its history of working productively with large technology platforms to permit the use of its content in new digital products (including the news products developed by Google, Meta, and Apple)."
Maybe Bard's apparent "behindness" is less about Google's technical merits or lack thereof, and more about it being built with a sense of legal maturity that the competitors don't yet have. After all, Google must have some experience in this space, and we've seen them simply refuse to deploy Bard in regions where (presumably) there is too much legal uncertainty. If 2024's Gemini performs similarly to GPT4 while also navigating legal landmines, maybe it comes out ahead.
On the other hand, leaving the day feeling confused and sleeping on the problem is often times more helpful than pushing through when you're not getting anywhere in the moment. It gives time for those "aha" moments when you're not actively problem solving.
Write it out then, quickly, before you stop. On paper, that is, with a pen/pencil. Write in pseudo-code if it helps get it on paper faster. Stick that to your monitor or under your keyboard, it'll be there the next morning. If you got it right, typing it in will be easy. If, the next day, you see things differently, you will be past the first draft.
After many years of learning this lesson over and over again, that much my subconscious works on problems, I've finally learned to trust myself to step away when I feel like I'm grinding.
Yep -- this is where I tend to see people end up after doing a sabbatical. That, or they alternate between periods of highly paid work and periods bumming skydiving, making art, etc.
That article doesn't assert that unions are to blame for prices increasing. In fact, the only reference to price increases are from an interview from someone getting off the train who agreed that the trains should staff a conductor, and implied that fares were increasing despite the staff cuts.
If anything that article supports the idea that unions protect people, and without them companies will push even more irresponsible decisions that put people at risk for the sake of profits.
