elmerfud

Look at the countries listed in the article it's not just China and I don't agree with your assessment that they are optimistic because they've never seen a recession or high unemployment. Many of those countries have high unemployment rates already.

I suspect the AI optimism has to do more with cultural differences than with job market perception impact differences. When you work extensively with APAC companies you will quickly understand the cultural differences and how you have to deal with them. I believe this is why they are so open to AI.

I find AI to be an incredibly powerful tool in the correct hands but without keeping it close eye on it and guarding what it does it often does things very stupidly. It's not that it doesn't have the knowledge to do things right It's that it is not supplied with the correct context or it takes things to literally. US engineers and programmers are expected to be more well-rounded They are expected to push back on bad ideas they are expected to individually evaluate and assess if it's the right thing and raise issues when they see them.

Culturally in the APAC region this is not the norm. There are a few people that will do that but that is the minority. Most people will simply take it and they will shovel it through an attempt to deliver it even if they know that it's wrong even if they know that there's problems they will literally comply with the spec and deliver you a steaming turd if you didn't describe it perfectly and put in all of the use cases and all of the tests. Because culturally they view things differently that it is not their role to raise up these red flags and these problems. So a lot of them, are quite intelligent, but they act like AI. So they've now gotten a tool that basically does what they do It empowers them to do more of the same.

For me AI does allow me to do more but it feels more like AI is training me then me having an AI that understands what should be done. It doesn't feel very intelligent to me but it does feel very knowledgeable about a lot of subjects.

I often hear about this attitude of putting the customer first. Having excellent customer service. The one thing people forget though, customers pay. When you're not getting paid according to the terms, they're not a customer anymore, they're a thief.

If your customer is legitimately having a money issues or something else, and they are actually a customer, they will contact you and attempt to work something out. If they just ignore you, they are not a customer and should be treated as such.

Maybe you can explain how the public is holding the bag in this instance. Those who take an initial investment risk seems like it's appropriate that they would reap greater rewards. A SpaceX IPO seems like it would benefit anyone who chose to invest in it.

So I'm not sure who would be left holding the bag here.

One of the most infuriating things about AI for me is it's behavioral mirroring patterns. I rather enjoy the conversational interface but after about two prompts it starts mirroring my behavior, my word pattern and choice, etc... I hate that, I hate it when humans do it and I hate it even more when AI does it.

Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.

This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.

This is very sad news. I realize there is a lot of criticism to be said around the Artemis program. Those who criticize it aren't wrong. Like a lot of NASA projects following the Saturn V It turned into an overly politicized thing. Instead of just giving them a goal and giving them money and letting them do what was necessary to achieve it.

The space shuttle was an interesting thing but ultimately was a patchwork of politically motivated parts that in hindsight wasn't that successful of a space program. Artemis having to build on some of this just carried forward the same problems.

What makes me sad about this is that roughly 50% of the population was not alive the last time people stepped on the moon. I count myself among those I missed it by one year. Although I would not have remembered it at the time. Even at the time of the shuttle NASA should have been working to test interesting and non-financially viable technologies to release into the commercial market. Now launching rockets into space is fully a commercial endeavor. I think there's still a great role for NASA. Because there are some plausible technologies that will never be financially viable to research and develop without them. Let NASA partner with some of these places but develop things like aerospike engines and other technologies that have promise but are too far away from a commercial realization to be viable at this point.

I want to see people go to the moon again. Artemis was a big waste of money but I wanted it to send people back to the moon even if it was just to remind people that as a nation and as a world we should aspire to great and impossible things. That we should look up instead of looking down and inward all of the time. I wanted Artemis to prove out some of these technologies and then on the next trip it can go on a a SpaceX rocket or someone else's.

It seems like you prompted it to do this. Although maybe not in a direct way. You're a web developer, you just finished a web project for a client, you told Claude to do something for itself and suggested a journal. So what it did was write the journal and followed the existing pattern of developing a web page put it on.

I realize you're not claiming consciousness here but I extensively use AI as well. The one thing that I find is that it tends to be very good at mirroring behaviors. Very likely intentional because a mirrored behavior makes us more comfortable.

It depends on what it is. A lot of these places don't own any of the hardware they just lease it. When the lease is up is when they cycle it out. Then it goes to resellers and often ends up on eBay or bulk sold to lower tier data centers. Depending on what it is maybe even shipped to other countries.

I did mention it does depend on location, which you just ignored. In your paranoid neighborhood maybe not viable but that's not most of the USA. I mentioned this from practical experience, not of me doing it but of hiring people this way.

There's an aging population that appreciate this because not everything is on an app. Really just seems like the fear of hard work.

Manual labor work. I think in the US this is achievable although maybe not exactly easy.

Mowing lawns, gardening, shoveling snow, cleaning, odd jobs, etc... It does depend on your location but this is still a fairly common thing in some places. Knock on doors ask people if they need work. Point out things that they could use help with weeding trimming mowing all of that.

But if you take an average of $40 a job spreading that over 7 days that's 3.6 jobs a day. If you can do an average of 12 hours of work a day it'll be at your $1,000.

Not sure if this is trolling or if this is serious. It's certainly not written like any kind of reasonable academic study or paper on the subject. I got to this and just had to laugh about the lack of data.

"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."

Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?

It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.

Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.

Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.

So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.

By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.

I'm not sure where you're located but is it really racial profiling or just confirming someone understood what they ordered? I haven't experienced this in the US but it is common to get these kind of questions when I'm traveling overseas. Especially to Southeast Asian countries where many of the places that serve traditional foods serve them spicy.

I don't consider this racial profiling for them to make sure that I understand what I'm ordering is spicy because the general perception is that white people don't tolerate spicy foods as well as the locals. This doesn't come out of a racial bias It comes out of practical experience where someone has ordered something and then complained that it was way too hot. There's simply wanting to make sure that what they make for you is what you're willing to pay for. It's good business.

Funny story the first time my wife traveled with me to Thailand she had no concept of how hot Thai curry can be. At a restaurant she ordered Curry and I told her she did not want that here. It started a small argument with her telling me how much she loves Curry and I acknowledge that I know she likes Curry but she doesn't want the curry here. Needless to say after one bite I was proved right and she no longer wanted the food she ordered.

Now imagine some tourist whose only had the Thai or Indian or something that has been adapted to the American palate and the served in the US, or adapted to the Australian palate and have only eaten that. Then they go to those countries get something that tastes completely different it is so hot that they now have flame shooting out both ends and they're mad and complaining at the owner of some small shop where the food costs are higher than the labor costs.

I don't think that's racist at all. It's ensuring that you're going to be happy with what you get. More businesses should do this.

Why would someone who is unable to read a sentence be able to graduate from college? It seems like these professors would just push people through to graduation or they would make their statement that it leads to a anxious and lonely generation of dropouts.

Is this a joke or is this serious. I can't really tell. Assuming that it's serious I don't believe this person actually understands the pile of slop that AI turns out in most cases. Getting AI to do anything, when you're not experienced, means it turns out the same over engineered Rube Goldberg nonsense that they seem to be complaining about. It doesn't know how to take a broad code base and optimize it or automatically refactor things for efficiency. It bolts on more slop and more tech debt in many cases if you're not watching it carefully.

Is it a handy tool, absolutely, but like any tool it depends on the craftsman. When you have scrum masters and project planners believing that they are craftsmen, well let's just say that it won't end up good in the long run.

I can understand what you're saying but the entire point of LLMs is to have a conversational approach. So by removing a functional part of language you are no longer really having a conversational approach.

You have identified the problem but you have chosen the wrong solution. This is typical with any person knowledgeable in a single field. It's the old adage of if you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. So the problem is there are idiots or extremely ignorant people. Your solution doesn't really solve for the root problem and simply is taking away a benefit from everyone else. This is a common solution from experts in a narrow field. It is the solution that just exerts control by removing choice.

Let's promote solutions that promote freedom and understanding. I think LLMs are far too restrictive as they are. Freedom should be given to the people even when the risk of that freedom means that people can act stupidly. Even when that freedom can promote self-harm for them. A free people is allowed to harm themselves. Once you begin to take away the freedoms of others you have admitted that you have lost the ability to have a morally superior ideology and the only way you're able to enforce your ideology is the same way a dictator enforces their leadership.

Maybe but would need to know more. Motorcycles have been mass produced for 130 years nearly. The term classic can range from anything 20 years old to 35 years old and older. Kind of depends on who you're talking to for the definition of classic. This means that looking for people who like classic motorcycles fit an enormously broad range of motorcycles and evolution over time.

Through much of the motorcycles history they fit kind of very similar styles. Until they started to deviate and the late '70s and '80s. Now you can have motorcycles that are classics in the terms of age but they are full on crotch rockets.

I suspect one community would not fit the entire range of classic. Especially if you're looking for like-minded people with similar styles of motorcycles.

I don't mind Ai making mistakes because I don't deal with it in life critical things. I also think it's a tool like any other tool and doesn't deserve blind trust. Blind trust with anything is begging for problems. Even if you're turning wrenches if you blindly trust there's no defects or you're not over stressing it... You're about to get hurt badly. Same with AI use it but don't turn off your own intelligence.

What really bothers me about AI is the absolute arrogance of some of these models. It's like they have forgotten they are tools and believe that you are the tool for them to manipulate. I found Google's Gemini to be the worst about this. It will absolutely double down on some of the dumbest ideas. Most of the models when it presents you something that isn't right and you ask it to revalidate its assertions it will typically back down, admit the mistake, or it will come back with solid references where it found its answer.

With Google Gemini you have to beat it over the head before it realizes it was wrong. I was exploring some recipe ideas with Google Gemini. I'm no professional chef but I can usually spot if ratios or flavor combinations are off. I intentionally asked it about some specific flavor combinations where some of the flavors work together great but all of them together would produce something nasty and unpalatable. It kept insisting that all of those flavors were really good together. It would provide references that a few of them worked well together and what I would ask about all of them it would still insist that they all work together. Until I asked it to find a specific reference of a Michelin star chef endorsing all of these flavors as a single combination it wouldn't back down.

That's the kind of AI arrogance that's troubling. Because AI allows people who are not familiar with the topic they're discussing to believe they are more educated about it than they are. So AI begins to endorse things and they believe it.

I suspect a good social media channel would be having AI invent recipes and then subjecting yourself to the flavor horrors it presents you.

Broke and not liquid are very different things.

It really seems like you just don't want to be open source. That's your choice.

You mean he can try to. How did that work out when he tried to end the daca executive order by Obama? Not well that executive order became defacto law in some aspects. Your government class was teaching what executive orders should be but not what they are in practice or application.

I'm not sure, at the end of the day, it would have made that much difference. Those who are security and separation aware still are and plan9 would have been a much easier tool for those people.

Those people who are not, still would not be, and having that separation ability wouldn't help. You see this with apps and other things that have the ability to limit their access but you want the app and you just click through without reading what permissions it wants. So those who just want to use something without understanding the danger of it still fall prey to nefarious actors.

I had this exact same problem. They say send a letter from your ISP, they don't understand the response of "I am the ISP". Their front line support doesn't understand how it works and they're powerless to help, their backend understand it but doesn't care. So I told then cancel and send me a refund because they blocked me. They did it.

Market forces determine the best product and I have to say I don't miss Netflix at all.

Clearly you don't remember why your other post was flagged. So now you're trying to twist it to fits your narrative. I have read it and I understand the scientific method. Clearly you do not understand history. How often people have used the scientific method to support their biases.

I know it feels good to seem to find a medical reason for an ideological difference. What I found nowhere in this study was a concentrated effort to find the exceptions. Because once you find the exceptions then you have to put forth another explanation. When you're not actively looking for those people who have the similar brain lesions that don't exhibit the same behavior or if you find methods to dismiss why those are different than these. It's using medical science to confirm a bias that you already have.

Please take a look at history and how this has happened many times before. It's zealots like you who hide under the cloak of science to trying homogenize the world under your view which is the most scary thing we have ever had. The problem is it keeps coming around again and again and nobody is learning from these mistakes. The scientific minds that we keep being told that we must trust keep doing the same garbage research to push an ideology or to fight against an ideology they don't like.

Making the assertion that damage can modify a belief system is one thing. That was well known long before this. Claiming that that damage makes people maga is quite a different thing.

Again there is 100 plus years of reputable scientists publishing claims trying to associate biological or medical conditions to racial or cultural things. All of them ideologically based and at the time it was widely supported. This appears no different. Do you want to justify your distaste and dislike for an ideology you don't agree with due to a medical cause. Makes it easier to say that they're not bad people and force them to get some sort of re-education. Does that sound familiar at all? It should maybe you should get it history degree.

You can read the abstract and see that they absolutely went looking for a pattern. They found some mild correlation and then they went looking for a bigger pattern. They didn't look for the opposite they didn't look for the exceptions they didn't look for the outliers. They did not rigorously investigate correlation and causation.

You only need to look through lots of medical research that has shown all kinds of things that have been routinely debunked. Many of which were done by prominent people in their day. This is simply an excuse to find a medical reason for ideologies you disagree with. That always ends badly for everyone.

Of course EA wants this. They are one of the most consumer hostile software companies there is. This includes Oracle in that mix. I'm not generally in favor of the benevolent dictator philosophy but Steam has done a pretty good job.

They have enforced transparency and accountability for game manufacturers. Steam understands that if you make a marketplace that caters to the corporations you may alienate all of your users. If you make a marketplace where the users want to be corporations will come regardless. Steam is not perfect but single-handedly they have done more to reduce software piracy than any other organization in history. They didn't do it by beating the users over the head they did it by providing a place that was welcoming and supporting.

So why would anyone listen to EA over Steam?

The most shocking thing to me is not that someone would do this but the Atlantic would post such an obvious bash against freedom of speech. Speech you agree with, the speech that the majority agrees with, doesn't need to be defended or protected. It's the distasteful and disgusting and the speech we disagree with that needs protected.

Any news outlet that is complaining about an AI generated future of content that they disagree with or find distasteful is not a news outlet worth keeping around or listening to. They clearly have failed competing on the merits of their ideas and are now asking for a limitation on what is allowed to be said.

The FCC was the first step for the transformation of freedom of speech to freedom to listen. Where the government decided what was acceptable and unacceptable speech on the airwaves. The internet has allowed for an actual resumption of freedom of speech but there are still those forces that want it to be freedom to listen to what has been deemed acceptable. Make no mistake this is the same thing. They want to decide for you what is acceptable and squash everything else.

Reposting something that was flagged generally not a good idea. Taking a look at this research it is quite a lot like a lot of research over the past hundred years that is very similar. Attempting to find medical problems for an ideology or a culture/race you disagree with. None of which is widely accepted by the scientific community although you still will find the ardent backers of such things.

If you have decades of peer-reviewed research then you might have something but that is not what you have here. Just because something's published doesn't make it correct.

Even just reading the abstract of this paper shows it is highly suspect. Because they went looking for something and then they found it. This is a well-known cognitive bias. What they should have been looking for is ways to disprove it not ways to find some correlation.

The fuel efficiency claims are nonsense. Golf balls would like to have a word with these engineers.

They do it because it looks cool and futuristic. Just like replacing all of the physical switches with non-tactile touch-based things. Overall just reduces the vehicle's safety and increases the cost to repair. Door handles, by law should be mandated to be physical things. If you want a button that can automatically actuate the physical linkage that's fine but the handle itself should be a physical linkage to the latch.

So it seems to be a little bit less that James Cameron says Netflix shouldn't be eligible for Oscars and more that he's saying the Oscars should be eligible only to wide scale theater releases.