I heard from a medium reliable source that this loophole wasn't as popular as the zeitgeist implies. I'd love to know how true that is and if so, how the rich finance themselves.
I listened to a few episodes on a recommendation. The episodes lead you to believe that the host is some agnostic person that's just curious about these reports. They are not as the original lead is from another superstition believer podcast.
They also present the cameraman as a token skeptic, who is of course quickly swayed into belief.
They lean heavily on a host of tricks with long histories of non-reproduction when tested rigorously.
A "scientist" (known crackpot and woo believer) is employed to make the experiments sound. And their terrible academic reputation was explained away using conspiratorial arguments.
I found TT wholly unconvincing and consider it a scam to get people to pay for the actual evidence. I won't pay of course and confidently assume it to be poor based on the publicly available material.
I gave up after it didn't let me see the prompt that went into the LLM, without using their proprietary service.
I'd recommend just using the API directly. They're very simple.
There might be some simpler wrapper library if you want all the providers and can't be bothered to implement the support for each. Vercel's ai-sdk seems decent for JS.
Anecdotal but I have experienced body ache from drinking diet soda with aspartame. I drank regular soda when younger but switched over to watch my weight as I aged. A year on during a more sleep deprived week I went heavy on the caffeinated diet soda and ended up with all muscles feeling like I had done some major exercising. Thinking back, I had been experiencing regular aches. I stopped for a week, felt better. Tested again by going heavy for a week and the aches returned. Tried regular soda and no aches. I just stopped soda all together at that point. I check labels now and avoid anything with aspartame in it.
Direction of causation would be very relevant here.
Sugar is still the cultural default; artificial sweeteners are something you explicitly choose due to health concerns (worried about being or becoming diabetic, or overweight, or worried about sugar being unhealthy in general, or about the mood/motivation angle, etc.).
I imagine becoming overweight itself is linked to anxiety both ways, as eating or snacking is a common reaction to stress, a way to relieve it in the moment.
>Sugar is still the cultural default; artificial sweeteners are something you explicitly choose due to health concerns
If only. Check the ingredients (usually near the bottom) of some energy drinks some time. Monster, NOS, AMP, half of the Rockstar flavors, Bang, and so on will add sucralose to the normal versions with sugar or HFCS in them. It's hard to find one without artificial sweeteners. This is especially crazy as Monster already has their sugar-free (Ultra?) line. They're forcing normal people to consume sucralose, and it's awful. Luckily Red Bull seems fine for now (Blueberry flavor is really good). Guru in its original flavor only also has no sucralose, but I think all the other flavors have it. I first noticed this trend one of the times they brought back Mtn Dew Game Fuel and it tasted disgusting. Now I'm scared of any new drink, or that they'll ruin one I like.
Also, I think water is fine, caffeine pills are fine, I know some people are against energy drinks, but I don't think that's a reason to ruin them (preempting replies saying not to drink them at all). I've been drinking black coffee all week but I still have some Blueberry Red Bull in my fridge for when I feel like it.
Is it the taste of sucralose which is ruining the drink or do you feel sucralose makes an otherwise healthy drink like red bull unhealthy?
(Full disclosure: I consider red bull very high risk of being unhealthy, considering the stuff they put in, the artificial flavours, etc. – sucralose is a mere detail to me)
Jumping in, but sucralose tastes very clearly weird to me. Aspartame I had too long ago but probably tastes weird too since I avoided it afterwards. Monk fruit tastes a lot better but it can get overwhelmingly sweet to me. I tend to avoid sweeteners though, partially because of the taste and partially because they are new chemicals and potentially unhealthy.
Sweeteners are definitely an acquired taste. The few times I went on or off of them, it took about two weeks for my body to adjust, after which artificially sweetened beverages started tasting good, and those sweetened with sugar felt off - and then also two weeks to readjust the other way around.
Ultimately, sweeteners won me over, and I've been "on" them for the past 12 years. For me it's a simple matter: I dislike pure water, and have been drinking black tea instead ever since I was a single-digit aged kid - but I also can't stand unsweetened tea. Sweeteners save me from ingesting stupid amounts of sugar through drinking some 10 mugs of tea every day, as I used to long ago.
It's the taste, yeah. Frankly I don't care much about what's "healthy" and I consider that to be a bit of a buzzword as well as a rabbit hole. I do eat a lot of veggies, don't eat meat/dairy anymore, don't drink alcohol, but in my mind I'm not doing this to be some health-freak. Alcohol tastes bad, for example, and I have very low tolerance for that sort of thing. A lot of people will assume I'm religious (I'm not) or otherwise ascetic, but I'm actually just doing what I want. It keeps life more interesting. If we're to look at an energy drink as a fun thing, a pleasurable treat, I think sticking sucralose in there completely defeats the point. I can drink water if I'm thirsty, I can get caffeine from other sources. I wanted the energy drink because it was good. If you make it not good, I'm not going to drink it.
I discovered that this is very common when posting a long article about LLM reasoning. Half the comments spoke of the exact things in the article as if they were original ideas.
