somestag
I think that cuts both ways though, because I think even the business people would be shocked at how well things can seem to work despite serious dysfunction. If an entire team dies off but 3 months later things seem "fine," the business types will just assume everything is as good as it ever was. I know it's popular these days to say that good tech and good business are not always the same thing, but I do think that many of those same businesses would be a little worried if you actually convinced them that their tech was coming off the rails and was only going to get worse. Some businesses just want to be acquired and don't care what happens after that, but not every business thinks they're on a clock.
If you're big enough, like say you're a trillion dollar megacorp, then important teams folding up and being reborn is just part of your ecosystem. I've seen big tech power through churn for years with nothing but human wave tactics until the business climate changed enough that the team in question became less critical, and that's when they let it die.
When we're getting rid of assembly line jobs, or checkout counter staff, or data entry clerks, or any other job that we know is demeaning and boring, we can convince ourselves that the thousands/millions put out of work are an unfortunate side effect of progress. Oh sure, the loss of jobs sucks, but no one should have to do those jobs anyway, right? The next generation will be better off, surely. We're just closing the door behind us. And maybe if our economic system didn't suck so much, we would take care of these people.
But when creatives start getting replaced, well, that's different. Many people dream of moving into the creative industry, not out of it. Now it feels like the door is closing ahead of us, not behind us.
Contrast with, say, SSRIs, which might have some effect in a healthy person but you're looking at a different range of effects compared to someone taking it for depression/anxiety/OCD/whatever.
When a drug is stigmatized in the United States, it is essentially impossible to get it legalized without showing there is a medical use for it. That's just how it is. If your goal is to get a drug legalized, it does not matter whether that's how it should be, or whether this is all rooted in systemic discrimination, or whether pharmaceutical companies push stuff that's just as bad under their veil of legitimacy. Citizens who are anti-drug are under the impression right now that ~100% of illicit drugs are extremely dangerous and a major threat to their community, and they are not going to sit around and listen to a history lesson philosophizing about how all their fears are a propagandized illusion.
Even if you got them to listen, they would just say "Why risk it?" The only way to start changing minds is to point out there are upsides to drug legalization beyond just "freedom is good." That's why all of the arguments for legalization focus on health/therapeautic benefits, either directly from the drugs themselves or in the ability to treat those who need help with addiction.
The article just scanned people's brains while they were on drugs and saw that the electrical activity was more erratic and scattered than normal, not more active and connected, and concluded that people were using psychedelics based on a myth.
I'm also not a big fan on emphasizing the "cognitively healthy" part of the equation. My understanding is that stimulants do exactly the same thing in a person whether they're "cognitively healthy" or not; they're not the sort of drugs that target a deficiency or clear up some specific problem. The only difference is that some people have more of a need in this area than others.
This reminds me of an old article I read about how psychedelics don't actually "increase connectivity in the brain" like users thought, as though that had anything to do with why people use psychedelics.
Whether that's "most" software engineers in games or not I can't say. AAA studios employ way more engineers per project but there are comparatively way more small- and mid-sized developers out there. It's interesting how strong the bubbles are, even within a niche industry like games.
I almost ruined my relationship with a coworker because they submitted some code that took a dependency on something it shouldn't have, and I told them to remove the dependency. What I meant was "do the same thing you did, but instead of using this method, just do what this method does inside your own code." But they misinterpreted it to mean "Don't do what this method does, build a completely different solution." Repeated attempts to clarify what I meant only dug the hole deeper because to them I was just complaining that their solution was different from how I would've done it.
Eventually I just showed them in code what I was asking for (it was a very small change!) and they got mad at me for making such a big deal over 3 lines of code. Of course the whole point was that it was a small change that would avoid a big problem down the road...
So I'll take ChatGPT using library methods that don't exist, no matter how much you tell them to fix it, over that kind of stress any day.
If I have to solve a hairy problem specific to our game's architecture, obviously I'm not going to ask ChatGPT to solve that for me. It's everything else that it works so well for. The stuff that I could do, but it's not really worth my time to actually do it when I can be focusing on the hard stuff.
One example: there was a custom protocol our game servers used to communicate with some other service. For reasons, we relied on an open-source tool to handle communication over this protocol, but then we decided we wanted to switch to an in-code solution. Rather than study the open source tool's code, rewrite it in the language we used, write tests for it, generate some test data... I just gave ChatGPT the original source and the protocol spec and spent 10 minutes walking it through the problem. I had a solution (with tests) in under half an hour when doing it all myself would've taken the afternoon. Then I went back to working on the actual hard stuff that my human brain was needed to solve.
I can't imagine being so specialized that I only ever work on difficult problems within my niche and nothing else. There's always some extra query to write, some API to interface with, some tests to write... it's not a matter of being able to do it myself, it's a matter of being able to focus primarily on the stuff I need to do myself.
Being able to offload the menial work to an AI also just changes the sorts of stuff I'm willing to do with my time. As a standalone software engineer, I will often choose not to write some simple'ish tool or script that might be useful because it might not be worth my time to write it, especially factoring in the cost of context switching. Nothing ground breaking, just something that might not be worth half an hour of my time. But I can just tell AI to write the script for me and I get it in a couple minutes. So instead of doing all my work without access to some convenient small custom tools, now I can do my work with them, with very little change to my workflow.
You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy. My response to this is that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly.
You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like. I couldn't have responded to these things even if I wanted to, because you didn't say them. All you said was that selfish motivation == misinformation, and that's wrong, and I disagree with it.
Of course I suspected that you wrote your comment because of angst against the manipulations of "modern ad campaigns," and not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation, and you just proved it for me. You're trying to redefine words so you can use those words to give your point more oomph.
I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed. Why do you think I said this? I didn't even imply it. I only said I thought you were being cynical.
It's true that there's a massive gap between a vendor hawking their wares on the street and "modern ad campaigns and techniques." There is also an entire gradient between these two things, and you see examples all along this gradient if you actually pay attention to advertising. The existence of this gradient is why I take issue with your original comment.
In the far far future, if we did crack AGI, it's not impossible to believe that specialized hardware modules would be built to enable AGI to interface with a "normal" home computer, much like we already add modules to our computers for specialized applications. Would this still count as software-only AI to you?
I've held for a long time that sensory input and real-world agency might be necessary to grow intelligence, so maybe you mean something like that, but even then that's something not incredibly outside the realm of what regular computers could do with some expansion.
I think you'll find that AGI cynics do not agree at all that "engineering a 10x/100x version" of what we have and making it attempt "AGI algorithms 24/7 in an evolutionary setting" is a "safe ticket" to AGI.
And now that we use computers for a lot of measurement, those infinite decimals aren't as big of a deal. (Well, most of the time, anyway. Representation of infinite fractions famously creates some programming problems. But I mean for the user making the measurement.)
Base-10 is easy to learn since it's the same we use for counting, but I think there's an interesting argument to be made that purely from a science/engineering/making perspective it would be better to use a consistent base-12 measurement system.
First, I (and many people that I know) do get upset when an ad misrepresents a product and we get burned. It happens all the time, and people complain about it constantly. You might argue this is wasted breath, but it still happens.
I would also say that while everyone accepts that ads are at a high risk for dishonesty, the vast majority of people live their lives assuming that ads convey some useful information, even if it's just the vague intent and target audience of the product. It's easy to pick out specific genres of ads that don't seem to do this, and ad rhetoric can often be complicated and interesting, but generally speaking they do try to convey some sort of genuine information about the product.
Saying that ads are fundamentally misinformation people because they are "obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which might actually not be good for them to buy" seems like a reasonable criticism at first glance, but actually I think that's kind of a ridiculous standard. No one except my closest friends and family have any idea what might be "good for me to buy", and I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming" the public simply because they're trying to sell to strangers.
This is not to say that the ad industry isn't infested with slimy people with perverse incentives. Of course it is. But advertising itself is a basic extension of human communication, and I think it's awfully cynical to say that any attempt to show someone why they might want to buy your product is spreading misinformation. I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not, then nearly all human discourse is an exercise in misinformation.
(Inb4 "actually, nearly all human discourse is misinformation")
I love how questions like this suddenly become more complicated when you have a deeper understanding of the internals. Your first instinct of an answer might not be 100% correct. If I were asked this question unexpectedly, I'd probably trip over myself a few times as I thought through it out loud.
What counts as "injured" or "killed"? If shots are fired and the resulting human stampede kills 4 people, does that count as 4 mass shooting deaths? Obviously the shooter is at fault, but these details affect the interpretation of events.
My undergrad was in statistics. In our capstone course, my professor had us read journal articles and discuss the statistical analyses within. I remember one study we read (peer reviewed, a couple dozen citations), and my professor's take away was, "I can't say it's wrong, but based on the data they gave, I can't for the life of me figure out how they reached their statistical conclusions." So yeah, it's a "fact" that the researchers reached a certain conclusion, but the conclusion itself is not fact.
I don't believe in post-truth, but "Facts are facts; truth is truth" is a philosophical statement, not a practical one. And even then, we have an entire field of philosophy to iron out those details, which we call epistemology.
I think people change slowly—much more slowly than we usually assume. Every time you try something to fix your life and you fail, you actually make a little bit of progress on yourself, just not enough to switch your behavior into something recognizably better. When you try a new strategy and succeed, there is a strong chance that you would not have been successful had you not made all of that incremental progress on yourself from all your failures. That's why it's important to never give up on yourself.
I've had "breakthroughs" that were basically just me trying the same thing I tried (and failed at) years earlier. The difference was that I'd gotten stronger in subtle ways over that time. Then, 6 months later, I'm back to my old habits. This is depressing, but when I remember that this is the first time I was able to stick with something for months instead of weeks, I realize I've actually made progress on myself.
Even though this isn't strictly about productivity, I think the best lesson from OP is that things get easier as you practice them. This seems obvious, but when we talk about building skills, we often frame it as us rising to the challenge. I.e., there's this very hard thing we want to do, and we need to become stronger to be able to do it. This isn't wrong per se, but I think it's bad for motivation because it frames progress as doing as doing increasingly more difficult things. Instead of thinking about getting better, I think it's more helpful to frame progress as things becoming easier. No matter how weak you feel you are, the things you find difficult in life will become easier as you work on them.
The tech world is gibberish. The real world is gibberish too, but the comparatively large number of tech products (because of the ease of releasing software) really exacerbates the problem in tech. Everything is a code name, in-joke, or initialism.
If this were limited to public products then you could write it off as overly ambitious branding, but you can tell it's an issue because internal products suffer the same problem. You know it's bad when you can't even navigate your own company's hierarchy because you don't know what half the team names mean.
Unfortunately, this will probably never change; there's too much precedent. Naming things incomprehensibly is fun, it creates a barrier to entry that makes developers feel smart, and the tech world doesn't value communication enough to change it. In a world where stackoverflow serves as de facto documentation for many major tech products because their own documentation is terrible, I hardly expect those same companies to value coherent naming.
Instead what happens is that the old developers built big things on-time so they were "good developers," and then the new developers struggle with the code and so management assumes the new devs are less competent.
From the customer point of view, though, "How do I know it's really them?" is a reasonable question because they don't really understand the implications of the answers.
I mean, I think they would if they were told it was a live broadcast.
Of all the fetishes out there, I think wanting to view a person in real-time is one of the more easily understandable ones. I am positive that there are plenty of people out there who prefer watching a live cam over uploaded VODs, even if they never actually interact with the model.
I'm sure that cam models are exceptionally concerned about privacy for very good reasons, and I don't think anyone should be obligated to provide live verification if they don't want to. But it's not like it's an irrational request.
I have trouble interpreting discoveries like these because my understanding of (neuro)biology is limited. For example, this:
> At the cellular level, these brains are very close to being alive, but if we consider the life of the brain as the expression of the functionality of the brain, then they’re very far from being alive.
I understand this is basically saying, "Just because the cells are working doesn't mean the brain is." But then my question is, what's the gap? I know the brain is complex at all, but it's always been a little strange to me that we aren't better at bringing back the dead. Do we know what it theoretically takes to "start" a brain?
Yeah, the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that some people are just more sensitive to lag than others.
If we're talking purely about enjoyment, then being sensitive to lag is nothing but a drawback. But from a performance standpoint, it's undeniable that lag has a heavy impact on gameplay. Your reaction time is constant from the time the light on the screen hits your eyes, so every millisecond you add to the pipeline from machine-to-screen (and from controller-to-machine) will strictly add to your reaction time. Sometimes even a very small increase in ms can change a challenge from "pretty doable" to "almost impossible" if the reaction time requirement was at the edge of your capabilities to begin with.
Whether or not this is "noticeable" depends on a lot of factors, including whether or not you've played the same game before on a less laggy setup. I think you're right that, given the same scenario (even the same skill level), some people just notice it more than others. Still, a part of me can't help but believe that it affects people's enjoyment whether they notice it or not.
I would love for a decent study to be done on this, because I think it has implications far outside gaming. Run an experiment where participants play a game in identical settings, except lag differs by small increments. At the end have participants rate their subjective experience, possibly along with their perception of responsiveness. My hunch is that even small differences in responsiveness would have a strong impact on experience, even if the participants don't notice anything "wrong."
Unfortunately, I've come around to the cynical mindset that I will never enjoy gaming over a streaming service, ever. I cannot stand the input lag, and I would rather play a game with shoddy graphics than with extra lag, or even just play a different game entirely. Maybe it's tolerable for games with zero real-time component, and even then I can feel the stickiness.
Back in the earlier days of large LCD TVs, I was always that guy who had to make a comment about lag on my friends' TVs. I knew I was being a dick but I couldn't handle being told there was "no lag" or "barely any lag" when there clearly was. I guess most people felt like my friends did because for a long time it was basically impossible to find a TV with reasonable input lag; then, LED TVs showed up, and basically by coincidence the gaming situation improved.
This is selfish, but I'm worried that as more people come around to cloud gaming (and the big players push it harder), the non-enthusiast gaming market will start drying up in favor of the streaming services. I can see a possible future where consoles die in favor of streaming apps; where some games start being released as exclusives to a cloud service; where mod support and community patches die off entirely because they're incompatible with streaming.
My comparisons weren't meant to be insulting—they were meant to clearly show why a field intending to do something doesn't mean we should assume it succeeds. And, even if it does succeed, we can't assume it's uniquely successful. I'm sure you'd agree that homeopathy doesn't succeed at its central goal, and that comparative literature also succeeds at teaching critical thinking skills. The claim is that more people should study philosophy, not that more people should study one of several fields in the liberal arts. I really don't feel it's insulting to question this.
For what it's worth, I'm in the pro-philosophy camp, so maybe that will help put my questioning into perspective.
As for your third point, I myself said you'd have a "very hard time going through a philosophy program without thinking critically," so we're in agreement in that you'd fail if you could not thinking critically at all. That on its own doesn't do anything to imply that the philosophy program teaches critical thinking, though. You'd fail a programming exam if you couldn't program, but the exam does not teach programming. I'm not even trying to split hairs here: philosophy certainly wouldn't be the only subject that, in practice, failed to teach its own requirements.
Which is what brought me to my final point about education. It's basically impossible to argue about what philosophy should do in an ideal world, because we all agree that everything should be great and ideally confers as many benefits as possible. I think that, in practice, philosophy education is a very mixed bag, and that this is very relevant when recommending to people that they pursue philosophy education. You could say the same about many subjects, but I think philosophy is somewhat unique in that the benefits are quite elusive without the right education to confer them.