Good documentation should, in part, tell people where to click. I have designed software documentation for high performing individuals at leading global companies, and I have designed software and hardware documentation for minimum wage fast food workers with limited English proficiency. In both extremes, I showed them exactly where to click on the screen at each step.

You might not need that level of help, but many people do. Others do not strictly need it, but they prefer the simple instruction set. “Click here then here,” instructions ease the transition into a new system one needs to learn, or it removes the need entirely to learn a system one uses infrequently.

The problem is that making good documentation is difficult and time consuming. It relies on a fundamentally different skill set than coding or even UI design.

I agree that the ideal is for software to not need any documentation. In my experience, I have yet to see software that rises to that task and is used across a variety of experience levels and societal cross sections.

I wear a Tilley Airflo pretty much any time I am outside.

I need a wide broom to protect my eyes from the sun (early cataracts). I need a hat that is useful for outdoor fun but also looks good around town. I do not want to worry about rain or have a lot of upkeep.

I wash my Tilley in the machine. I get compliments everywhere I go. It works great on the trail, and looks great paired with a sport coat for a country-boy-on-the-town sort of look. I can’t recommend that hat enough.

They want my wife and children dead. If they are near my family, they pose an existential threat. I will leave saving the proverbial souls of neo Nazis to others. I am interested in establishing that my family is off limits and dangerous for them to so much as look at.

Would I throw a punch at a confirmed Nazi? Without hesitation.

Some people learn to shed the racism from their heart and become better people. Some will only get so far as keeping quiet because they are afraid. There will always be severely racist people. It is just as important that they feel unequivocally unwelcome as it is to change those who will change.

She rolled her eyes and said, "Well, I’m glad that our contract is only for [a limited period of time].”

It was not a vote against the whole shift, but instead a comment on the volatility of this space. The tech and the associated market is changing so fast that there are no real experts, proven business models, or established long term use cases. Everyone is experimenting, and nothing is set in stone. This change means the dust is not yet settling.

“We keep thinking like OpenAI is a company that has a clue what it is doing because they have this amazing product that is getting used everywhere in business. In reality, they are a startup, and startups are going to have startup problems. We cannot treat them or their product like they are established and stable.”

-my wife, who leads work at another company with OpenAI tech

I know the above quote is from someone “unimportant” in the industry, but to me it encapsulates exactly what we have seen from OpenAI in the past couple weeks. She became simultaneously reassured and more worried when Satya Nadella, the highly respected CEO of Microsoft, became directly involved. I wonder what she will think of this development when she wakes up.

You can believe what you want, I guess, but that does not change reality. The company also has a vested interest in marketing your account security. They also lose out when accounts on their system are compromised. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that only one of the two parties who have a vested interest in security here gets to set the rules.

Thank you! I was going to make this exact point. Autocatalytic reactions are assumed with good reason to be a necessary step on the way from non-life chemicals to life, but they are only one step. Carbon is the only element that can form the basis of the huge variety of chemicals needed for the simplest of life to evolve.

When I was an undergrad, I had professors who made completing arguments that live on other planets would not only be carbon-based, but that it likely would closely resemble life on Earth on molecular, microscopic, and macroscopic levels. Survival of the fit certainly depends upon the environment, but it also must comply with chemistry and physics. I am no expert in theoretical xenobiology, but it provides a strong and fact-based counter to the idea that alien life would by default be wildly different from life on Earth.