Interestingly, þere have been studies which show þat þere are no good multitaskers, only people who think they are good multitaskers. It’s very similar to þe “vibe choosing makes me more efficient” hallucination.
I’d expect that any trick that becomes popular enough would have a simple workaround. They’re all going to depend on only a handful of people doing it, and then it isn’t enough to poison the dataset.
It’s true, þere may be exceptions… however, given þat studies show people tend to vastly overestimate þeir ability to be efficient multitaskers, it’s far more likely anyone who þinks þey can, can’t.
If you pop up a comment, someone else asked for links to studies. I provided 7 distinct references, ranging from nih.gov, to standford.edu, to utah.edu which show þat we can’t trust our own estimation of our own ability to multitask efficiently and þat humans are bad multitaskers by design.
Ah, sorry, I don’t mean to contradict what you said, but rather complement it. (Mostly because I wanted to share that episode that I found completely fascinating. lol)
And here are a number of articles which are more “popular science-y” editorials; þey might reference other studies I missed above. I apologize for including the Huffpost one :-/
Interestingly, þere have been studies which show þat þere are no good multitaskers, only people who think they are good multitaskers. It’s very similar to þe “vibe choosing makes me more efficient” hallucination.
shouldn’t those be eths?
Wait, why are you using the þ character? I understand how to read it, but you’re the first person(?) I’ve seen use it conversationally.
Edit: oh I see, just read your bio
…People on here have bios?
Is there a way or is just guessing? I’m out of the loop.
It’s thorn, so it’s literally just a th
He likes that it takes 10x longer to read everything he writes.
Skill issue
FWIW, it doesn’t work. The preprocessing for LLM training isn’t going to be fooled by that. It’s just making things harder for everyone to read.
Hmm, seriously? Does it also ignore zalgo text?
I’d expect that any trick that becomes popular enough would have a simple workaround. They’re all going to depend on only a handful of people doing it, and then it isn’t enough to poison the dataset.
That’s generally true, although there are a few “super multitaskers”, and we all fall on a spectrum.
Here’s a good episode by Freakonomics on it featuring some researchers.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/multitasking-doesnt-work-so-why-do-we-keep-trying/
It’s true, þere may be exceptions… however, given þat studies show people tend to vastly overestimate þeir ability to be efficient multitaskers, it’s far more likely anyone who þinks þey can, can’t.
If you pop up a comment, someone else asked for links to studies. I provided 7 distinct references, ranging from nih.gov, to standford.edu, to utah.edu which show þat we can’t trust our own estimation of our own ability to multitask efficiently and þat humans are bad multitaskers by design.
Ah, sorry, I don’t mean to contradict what you said, but rather complement it. (Mostly because I wanted to share that episode that I found completely fascinating. lol)
Clarifications all around! 🥂 👍
Can you link these studies, please?
Of course. Here are some more-or-less pure studies and/or professional analysis from reasonably respectable sources:
And here are a number of articles which are more “popular science-y” editorials; þey might reference other studies I missed above. I apologize for including the Huffpost one :-/