sdiacom
But I don't think AI art can possibly take away from the beauty and enjoyment that can be found in drawing and making art. You mention how a musician loves playing their instrument. I can download a music edition software and summon a virtual orchestra out of my speakers in seconds. But does this take anything from the musician? Is their feeling any less true, their music any less meaningful to themselves and to those who listen? If I bring my laptop to a party and play Vivaldi's seasons on it, will that elicit the same reaction as if I play it in the living room's piano?
If language models eventually get good enough at programming that I'm out of a job, I won't derive any less enjoyment out of programming. I'll be a lot poorer, sure, but I will still enjoy the process of coming up with a way to express constraints in code, even if a machine can do it for me in the blink of an eye. Just like I find it relaxing to do the dishes myself when I'm anxious, even if I have a perfectly good dishwasher. Just like how people who enjoy solving Sudokus don't find it less fun just because automatic Sudoku solvers exist. The journey is the destination.
And for the record, I don't think human art will disappear because of AI art, or human programming will disappear because of AI programming. If there's one thing that's demonstrably true through the history of humanity, is that humans have a strong human-centric bias. The sooner we commodify something and remove the human element from it, the sooner we bring that human element back, now elevated to the status of luxury and catered to a niche.
Let me explain what I mean: I can buy black garlic in a plastic container for cheap, but I can also go to the weekend farmer market and pay three times as much for black garlic from a lady who lives up the mountains and can tell me the shape of the jar she fermented it in. IKEA makes perfectly good furniture that you can use to play board games for less than a hundred, but board game enthusiasts pay hundreds or thousands for custom furniture with nooks and bezels to stop the tokens from sliding out. Glass blowing as a form of art continues to exist, regardless of the availability of perfectly fine, industrially-made glass appliances. It's just in artisanal fairs in Venice, not in your living room.
And sure, you won't be able to make a living anymore out of cranking out uninspired corporate Memphis for bay-area startups, or drawing cartoon furries for Twitter randos on commission. And, in a way... thank fuck for that, right? The combinatorial space of drawing people with smooth curves in fantasy skin colors using technological appliances in collaborative settings can be exhausted by an AI, and you can actually focus on making art that breaks the mold, art that hasn't been made before, art that is meaningful to you. You can imbue art with meaning and use art to communicate with other humans, while the "art" that ticks out boxes and replaces placeholders in landing pages can be cranked out by AI.
Yes, it will be harder to make a living out of that, but I'm sure it won't be impossible. Computers have been able to generate Mondrian paintings since the 80s, and that hasn't made Mondrian paintings any less valuable. An AI may be able to produce the exact same drawing that you do, but it can't imbue human meaning in it.
The interesting question here is, what happens when the people who are working on something for free move on, or when their motivation is no longer enough to ensure the quality of the resulting product? What would the millions of people who rely on that thing do then?
Maybe they'll just move on to an alternative, or just do without this particular product. That's fine, at least at an individual level. But collectively, the cost of millions of people moving to an alternative, or figuring out how to go on without it, is surely much higher than the cost of maintaining the original product.
So there's a tragedy of the commons in the making here, right? Millions of people collectively benefit from the existence and maintenance of this project, and would be harmed to some extent by its absence, and yet, because it's "free", no one is willing to put in the time, effort or money needed to ensure its continued existence.
You can plainly see that none of this is about whether it deserves to be paid. Regardless, "you deserve to be paid if people pay you" is as absurd a sentence as "you deserve to be alive if people don't kill you". That's not what "deserve" means, that's just stating what things are.
There is probably a need to refresh it periodically to account for what the MMAcevedo fictional story [1] calls "context drift" -- the relevant search terms to infer from the query are themselves contextual. Say, if I ask Bing today "is Trump running for president", the right search term today could be "donald trump 2024 election", but ten years from now it might be "eric trump 2036 election".
Obviously it's because they themselves don't know what it means, so it just gets filtered by their brain as nonsense tech words. But is it really that hard for them to reach out to a tech person and ask them "hey, what does it mean that they use an SS7 vulnerability to hack into Telegram accounts?", so that they can explain "Oh, that means they're impersonating your phone number, so that when Telegram sends you an SMS to verify that it's you, they receive that SMS on your behalf and can log in to your Telegram account"?
It baffles me, because it would take so little effort for them to provide this additional context into how the actual hacking is done, in a way that is understandable and interesting for the average non-tech person, and yet... they just don't bother to?
Somehow this seems to only be acceptable for tech stuff. If when they found out that this guy was involved in the Nigerian elections, the reporter shrugged and said "Huh, Nigeria. I wonder what a Nigeria is. Anyway, not worth Googling it or checking whether it has any relevance to the story whatsoever" then everyone would agree he's doing a disservice to the story and to the public. Yet somehow this is routinely done with technical terms, the public is worse off because basic things are hidden to them behind inscrutable acronyms by lazy reporters, and no one bats an eye.
When we talk about some of the tangible things that we might actually want this "serendipity" for, these are the ones that I constantly see pop up:
- Spontaneously detecting and addressing small issues with the product
- Spontaneously coming up with and implementing ideas for the product
- Spontaneously coming up with and implementing workflow improvements
These are all things that should be addressed as part of day-to-day work. The reason they're not addressed is often overzealous prioritization of shiny things to the detriment of everything else. Or, in other words, bad management.
That's all this "serendipity" is actually for: a release valve for the pressure imposed by bad management, which helps mask the effects of bad management.
All you actually need to do, in order to reap the benefits of "serendipity" without locking hundreds of people in the same room together, is incentivize the necessary interactions, provide people with the necessary time to act on their urges, and get out of the way.
Here's some free ideas that I've seen work in real life:
- Have a Slack room for people to share user feedback, and explicitly encourage negative user feedback (maybe a different room for positive and negative, to avoid dampening good moods)
- Encourage employees to suggest improvements to the product and the workflow, and to publicly (yet politely) vent about the current processes that bother them. Don't make a "feature request" JIRA form that dumps it into an endless backlog, never to be seen again. Instead, have people discuss the issue publicly in a Slack room, which allows feedback and potential improvements to be considered and taken into account, then have them create an issue once they understand what it's actually about.
- Your planning should aim to drive around half of the actual work that gets done, under the acknowledgement that the other half will be organically filled with work that needs to be done. It's always easy to pick the next task if you're done earlier than expected and there's nothing else to do. It's a lot harder to sideline planned work that you've explicitly been told to do in order to do something that's actually important instead.
It seems like _some_ string operations treat each surrogate (that's the fancy name for the half-characters) as its own character, while others (correctly) treat the surrogate pair as a single character.
This might explain how ensuring that the function name does not contain astral character simplifies using different string functions without accidentally introducing bugs.
For legacy reasons, JavaScript's "character unit", the basic component of a string, is an "UTF-16 character", that is, sixteen bits that are interpreted as being UTF-16-encoded. That said, sixteen bits are not enough to represent all valid Unicode characters in the UTF-16 encoding. Instead, characters in the [supplemental planes] are represented in UTF-16 using two sixteen-bytes "non-characters", which do not individually map to any Unicode codepoint in any plane, but in combination reference an Unicode codepoint in one of the supplemental planes.
JavaScript's internal representation of strings, as well as the APIs it exposes for dealing with strings, such as index accessing and string length, treat each of the sixteen bit "halves" of the UTF-16 representation of a supplemental plane codepoint as individual characters.
This means that, when you index a string, you might get an UTF-16 character that represents a Unicode codepoint in the basic plane, or an UTF-16 "non-character" that, along with its other half, would represent an Unicode codepoint in one of the supplemental planes.
[supplemental planes]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Unicode) (see planes 1 to 16)
In short, turns out aligning thirty to forty competing profit motives is hard.
It's been decades; the kids are the study. Also, they're no longer kids. Do people who have taken the vaccines report higher rates of autism? It would be relatively simple to check for that.
> Did you have any idea other than "anything but the vaccines"?
Increased awareness of autism, increased medical attention on kids at large, increased medicalization of societal deviance, less socialization, less parental time, environmental factors (more CO2, more exposure to pollutants, more exposure to forever chemicals), dietary factors (more sugar, more carbs, more fat, microplastics), derived factors from any of the above (more screen time, earlier occurence of obesity and diabetes, higher prevalence and normalization of societal deviance).
All of those are as likely as vaccines; which is to say, extremely unlikely. We can test for them. Or we can keep testing this one thing we've already tested for, over and over, until as statistically expected, a study eventually happens to agree with your preconceptions about vaccines, proving the all-encompassing conspiracy of $cienti$t$ and $tati$tic$ and error margin$, and plunging us into another two decades of unvaccinated idiocy.
The way you tell "epistemologically anarchist theories" from quackery is the same way you tell any other theories from quackery: you test them.
There's no reason why tier-1 support has to be this irredeemably useless. Just put someone in the loop who knows when _not_ to blindly follow a script. It really isn't that hard.
The real decentralized tech, the one that serves a purpose other than emptying the wallets of naïve crypto-enthusiasts, does just fine without a profit motive. You don't need get-rich-quick promises to get an audience if you're actually doing something useful.
Let's set aside that neither the patient and the doctor would be happy about this at all, since the patient would still be in pain after the painkillers wear off, and the doctor would have failed to achieve the actual purpose of the procedure, which is to kill the patient. Sure, they're both happy about their shared failure because, I don't know, baby Jesus is smiling at them from the heavens or something, whatever.
So you're saying that, by applying terminal sedation, whose only possible outcome both in theory and in practice is the death of the person, the actual objective is to relieve the pain without causing the death of the person? The obvious conclusion of taking this absurd argument seriously is that every single doctor who applies terminal sedation is committing medical malpractice, because apparently they're all too stupid to not kill the person, as this procedure, according to you, does not actually intend to.
Please think about the bullshit you spew for a second before you press send. It's embarrassing.
> So no, I can't promise them that they'll find out why life is worth living. But I can promise them a nonzero chance that they someday will. And if that chance isn't enough to make them stop actively seeking to end it, I honestly think they're not thinking straight.
Wow. So everyone who doesn't agree with your blatantly pro-continued-suffering agenda is "not thinking straight", and therefore you get to force them to continue suffering, actively taking their agency from them, because... maybe magic? Hey, who knows, your suffering might miraculously vanish tomorrow, so suck it up, buttercup. Life is good, baby! Life is good! Except, well, for you it isn't, but why would I let reality get in the way of my pro-forced-misery ideology? And maybe, most likely, almost surely, this miracle will never happen. But what do I care? You're the one suffering, and I'm just grandstanding about borrowing books from fancy doctors on the internet. All's good on my end, anyway.
Truly spoken like an entitled know-it-all who has never suffered for a single second of their life. Embarrassing and shameful. All of those debates with so many doctors over so many years, and you still haven't figured out that the topic requires empathy for other human beings.
> The right to conscientious objection is certainly important, but I really can't entrust it to people who don't understand the difference between "accepting an outcome" and "seeking an outcome as a means to an end". You won't let us keep it for long.
Don't have the fucking nerve to tell me that I won't let you keep your rights for long. You're the one openly advocating against other people's right to end their suffering, their rights over their own minds and bodies, with no real basis except magical thinking and abysmal misunderstandings of law and medicine. Have some fucking respect.
Of course those around them are allowed to say "please don't do it" -- but the person who's making the decision might still choose to do it. This is true, independently of whether assisted suicide is on the table. Regardless, getting to have an open conversation about it will be a better starting point for healing, for everyone involved. You can't say "please don't do it" to a suicide note, or ask it further questions so that you can better understand why they made that decision.
You have a profound misunderstanding of how most assisted suicide laws around the world work. Doctors are not demanded to do anything, and certainly are not held to any obligation to end the life of anyone who asks them to. They evaluate whether the request has validity based on medical criteria, and deny it or accept it on that basis. Doctors who object for religious or moral reasons are usually exempt from participating in it altogether. They definitely don't have to do it for people who aren't terminally ill -- although in some legislations, they might be allowed to.
I'm also unsure what you believe terminal sedation and cessation of treatment are. Death is definitely the expected result. Or rather, death is the means to achieve the desired goal, which is ending the patient's suffering -- just like with assisted suicide.
You speak of statistics where people have abandoned their wish to die and lived long lives. Did they live good lives? Can you, personally, promise to everyone in the world seeking assisted suicide, that if they do not follow through, they will live good lives? That their continued suffering will eventually end, or that it will be worth enduring?
I think it's the least you can do, given that you've talked to a dentist once or whatever, and that apparently gives you the moral high ground to make that decision, on behalf of all doctors and of all people who seek assisted suicide alike.
I also struggled with depression and suicidality in my twenties. My life also got better, and I am glad I did not succeed at killing myself. I do not advocate for assisted suicide as a solution for most problems -- just for those health situations where no real solutions exist.
My mother, however, is approaching her sixties. She's been depressed, like, really, majorly, manically, clinically depressed, for as long as I can remember. She's tried to kill herself many times, twice in the last year alone. She's tried every medication under the sun, some which have temporarily made things better, many which have permanently made things worse.
All she's heard from her loved ones, over the last thirty years, is that she has to keep trying. Always, forever, keep trying, through an endless trough of misery with no end in sight. Do yoga, sign up for courses, move away, move back, try CBT, try CBD, try SSRIs, try benzodiazepines, try anti-psychotics.
Try and then try again, forevermore getting nowhere, until you finally get to die in a way that your loved ones find socially acceptable. Because otherwise us, your loved ones, we'll keep rescuing you -- hell, legally speaking, we're forced to rescue you, again and again, unless you eventually get desperate enough to die that you don't even call to say goodbye.
I also hope that assisted suicide can be a revulsive for our profoundly sick society. Maybe if instead of letting people freeze, starve, be lonely and sick and sad, "fade out" in a way that looks like a "natural death" or an "accident", maybe if we counted them, if we kept a tally of the people who have gone to their doctors begging for death because their existence was untenable or unworthy of living, maybe that would force us to acknowledge them, to listen to their stories, to transform our society so that there's a place in it for them.
Or maybe it would just be another number to become desensitized to.
What you brush off as "official approval" can be the difference between a person's family members getting to say goodbye to their loved one before they die peacefully on their own terms, or them getting home one day to find their brains scattered all over the garage. It's about whether you get to make this painfully difficult decision about your life on the open, with the support of those around you, or whether you are forced to hide it from them, out of shame or to avoid legal repercussions. It's about whether your loved ones are able remember you as you were in life, or as the trauma, guilt and shame that followed your death. It matters a lot.
Life is worth living, yes. On the abstract, and on a personal level, I wholeheartedly agree. But I do not get to impart that judgement on other people's concrete lived experiences, to decide that their life is worth living on their behalf. Just like I alone decide whether mine is.
And fortunately, given how these processes are set up, nobody will ask you, either. You win some, you lose some.
While a dystopian society could consider choosing to kill people based on their externalities (such as, for example, as we currently do by putting criminals in death row) advocates of assisted suicide put the wishes of the person undergoing the procedure first and foremost. Euthanasia should never be something that is done to you without your explicit, self-driven, sound-of-mind consent.
And indeed, morality judgements are always influenced by the context of their time. Eugenics was a somewhat popular idea around that time, but it's important to note that this does not mean that early 20th century people were less moral than we are.
Families required the labor of all of their members to survive, and an unproductive member of the family that required extensive care carried a very clear cost in opportunity and quality of life to the family, often one that permanently impacted the life of the mother. It was seen as a moral good to somehow use science to figure out a way to "spare" families, and especially women, from what was seen as an arbitrary misfortune, an "act of god".
One of the reasons why eugenics is not nearly as popular today is that society takes on a more collective approach to supporting and caring for disabled people. While there's still a long, long way to go, there are schools for children with special needs, there are disability payments, there are ways through which society organizes to help those who care for others, alternatives to what was often a very tough choice for mothers, between abandonment, murder or misery.
Eugenics didn't change. Morality didn't change. Society changed, and in doing so, it shifted the balance, and it is no longer seen as the moral choice to engineer humanity so that Jerry doesn't exist, because the alternative to that no longer is to make his mother's life untenable. By having better options, we are enabled to make better choices.
I'm not sure what your fixation with how criminals die is about -- there is no "nice" way to die, just more painful and less painful ones, more prolonged and less prolonged ones. Euthanasia gives us a choice that, speaking purely of the physical experience, is on the often-preferred end of the spectrum.
The doctor should consider it to be an acceptable measure under a limited set of circumstances, and should consider it not to be acceptable in almost all other circumstances. In all cases, the decision is only to be taken by the person whose life is going to end. All the doctor can do is authorize or deny that decision, never to make it on their behalf.
Family should often be consulted by the doctor in order to make that decision in an informed manner, but family doesn't get a vote. Your family does not own you or your body.
I don't have any prior commitment to "ending the lives of others", and to say so is to willfully misinterpret what I have said to an absurd extreme. My only commitment is to others, and myself, being able to decide how to end our own lives, and no one else's lives but our own, in a dignified manner, when our very existence entails suffering.
It does not matter whether I "like the sound of it" or not. I am not currently seeking euthanasia, and I am not a doctor for someone who is, so rest assured that nobody is asking for my opinion. What matters is if the person whose life is going to end does, given that they are of sound mind to make such a judgement.
I'm glad you will still try. We should always try to make others' lives better, to provide better lives instead of easier deaths. But sometimes we won't be able to.
People who were forced to starve, to subsist, to suffer empty, meaningless lives of toil and/or misery, now have an alternative to the continuation of their suffering. This does not mean the alternative is good, but neither is its absence.
One would hope that seeing how many people would rather choose to die in their own terms, as opposed to continuing to toil to enrich their landlords while they have to choose between food and heating, would steer us towards building a better society, one where people have not only freedom, but autonomy over their own lives.
And if it doesn't, well, then I suppose I'm glad we have an alternative to the society we're building.