slibhb
That aside, what matters is whether the company fixes the problem in a timely manner. If they don't, it doesn't matter how nice a message they send. And if they do, it hardly matters if their message is brusque, boilerplate, or obviously AI.
Ultimately people disagree about things and I think your worldview doesn't really have room for that, which seems unfortunate.
It's bizarre to read through threads like this and see all the vitriol. I'm open to critiques but I mostly just see lazy meme-level comments.
I find Thiel interesting. His views on stagnation are widely influential and seem to have presaged a broad revaluation of rules and regulations that have accumulated over the years (including zoning rules).
I guess those AI models were trained on solutions to Navier-Stokes and a proof of the Quasi-Riemann hypothesis.
> Do you know why I am so against all this hype? Because it is a poison for the mind, it deprives you from thinking from understanding and from questioning things by ourselves, and I'm already witnessing AI junkies that consume and take for granted every single output from a model.
This argument has been made against every human innovation, including writing. Maybe it's true this time but I doubt it.
> Why think if you can now outsource it to a computer, right?
I was already outsourcing plenty to the wikipedia, do-yourself-youtube videos, and so on. This doesn't seem that different.
However, I wouldn't push the point. My view is that "life is good so having children is good" but not "you must have as many children as possible." There are various ways I might justify this philosophically, but I would just say that parents have a special obligation to their children and, if you have too many children, it's impossible to fulfill that obligation. So you should have as many children as you can effectively parent.
Also wait times are longer in Canada. And an anecdote: I went to the ER last Monday. No wait. And had a referral to a surgeon that same day. And surgery on Wednesday!
But yes, a solution is for people to host their own content/sites. Or "protocols not platforms"
They often list overpopulation as a reason. But yes, it's not the only reason they give.
As an antidote to this kind of mindless negativity, just consider whether any individual human is happy to have been born. It seems very clear to me that most people enjoy being alive and so having children is moral on utilitarian grounds.
It takes a long, long time for new ideas to diffuse through society. Most people are not paying close attention to the cutting edge.
It's very clear to observers of reality that the vast, vast majority of prominent people and organizations who criticized wokeness have moved on to criticzing Trump. For the most part, "free speech advocates" are just normal liberals with principles, but that doesn't stop people in every one of these threads calling out "free speech" like it's something insidious.
Just look at the signatories of the Harper's letter: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
The vast, vast majority have gone on to criticize Trump in his second term.
My experience is that, for the most part, the people who criticized woke censorship are also critics of the Trump administration and its lawlessness.
You have to ask for this. As in "I'm not sure about this approach due to X, Y, and Z. Can you think of something more elegant?" It works!
But also, how many people actually need to do the kind of "deep" work you're claiming LLMs can't do? Most people aren't contributing to the frontier of anything. I'm not.
Finally, I think you're appealing to a fuzzy distinction. The difference between a "genuinely new idea" and an idea that "combines existing ideas in a new way" just isn't very well defined. In retrospect, a lot of the most revolutionary idea look like a combination of many, smaller, prior ideas.
To me, this is the depressing sentiment. The idea that, somehow, the goal isn't to produce useful things but to spread work out over a period of time in order to maximize payment.
At a high level,I conceptualize my job as "doing useful things." Whether that's design, writing code, debugging, sysadmin, CI/CD, writing doc, whatever. I just want to be useful. If there's some tool that makes that easier, I am happy about it. I don't think that tool will result in my getting paid less. But if it does, oh well.
I didn't say that. My point is that you need to tolerate "deleterious speech" in a democracy.
If you disagree, you should just admit that you don't believe in democracy. Which is a perfectly respectable position.
> Most students at both preparatory and public schools were boarders, meaning that elite Victorians were generally sent away from home by the age of eight and spent their childhoods more with peers than with family. In this respect they were distinctive even in their own time: elite families in continental Europe and the United States were far more likely to keep their children at home and educate them at small local private schools. It is plausible that this contributed to the lack of subnational loyalties in the British elite, in contrast to the distinct elites of, for example, the Southern United States, Catalonia in Spain, or Hungary in the Austrian Empire
Less developed, more dysfunctional countries tend to have closer family ties. More developed countries tend to have looser family ties. Sending children to boarding school starting at age 8 is a good way to diminish family ties.
A Nobel can only be split among 3. Agree with the rest of your post.
Yeah, I don't like how people choose to communicate on the internet either. But that doesn't make it "not free speech."
I have seen no evidence that "actual humans are the small minority".