“technical correctness is worthless if you’re solving the wrong problem.”
100% agreed
Probably could’ve mentioned at some point in that whole article that Albert Heijn is a supermarket chain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Heijn
It’s one of the major supermarket chains in NL, which I guess isn’t that obvious to most people, but I miss shopping there because the chains where I am have rotten, moldy produce and AH always had fresh produce and packs of relatively cheap stroopwafel.
Also, related to the post, I’d almost rather be sweeping the floor there. I don’t want to sweep floors, but it’d mean I live there, so yeah.
it doesn’t matter. Also if it was Walmart would you also have suggested it?
My problem was that “Albert Heijn” is a dude’s name. It does not exactly scream “we’re talking about a real physical building”.
For all I knew, the impossible problem we’re solving could’ve been on a mathematical plane, named after mathematician Albert Heijn. “Sweeping” just as well can be used in an abstract sense.
Obviously, I did think of physically sweeping a physical floor first and foremost, but especially with the rest of the blog post being so entirely abstract, I had doubts on that for far too long, which did not make it easier to understand.
The article is nice and the finals observations are saddly so true :/ :(
Even LLMs (Large Language Models) like ChatGPT optimize for the wrong thing. They optimize for sounding confident. For sounding like they know the answer. Not for being right. Not for being honest.
wakka wakka wakka wakka
