Dan_Sylveste

Smart lad, keep it up.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

I'm not sure about this one, I've been watching. I'm going with mental illness but it could be GPT-3.

No, it isn't a parsing engine, it's purely a statistics based engine. What it generates is based on patterns found in the text that was fed to it. It doesn't comprehend what it generates or the meanings of the words it outputs, all it understands is the statistical relationships between words. i.e. GPT ends a sentence when statistics say that the sentence it's constructing is not usually that long. It ends a sentence with a word or phrase that's statistically found at the end of sentences.

That's not a story, that's what's actually happened, only the it wasn't an AI, it was aliens that were discovered in 2018. That's why we're seeing more and more of an open attitude towards UFOs from major governments, in preparation for the big reveal. You will eat the bugs.

>Social graph metadata. The GGP said they would all be "talking to each other."

I think by 'detect' they mean 'detect by people who might fall for it' not 'detect by national security agencies.'

I don't see any way for the average social media user to detect whether they're engaging with a botfarm unless the social media company exposes their analytics, and they don't, and they aren't likely to start unless forced.

That's the stated reason, but it isn't the one I believe.

I'm blaming cyberwarfare operations carried out by foreign adversaries, to be clear. Not some nebulous 'internet.' Targeted and deliberate actions carried out by nameable and identifiable parties.

Any halfway competent social media management team has enough bots on standby to be able to sweep anything but an absolute stone cold dead-body-in-the-trunk scandal under the rug in seconds.

Step 1 of managing any celeb's social media profile is to add 15k of bots to their followers so you can 'forum slide' any criticism away at will.

>I feel like you'd need a citation to counter it.

You don't need a citation to counter a baseless assertion. My assertion is that most people who apply for remote jobs are fairly honest (by culture) white-collar types who wouldn't think to 'double up on remote jobs' for the same reason they wouldn't think go out at night stealing catalytic converters, which is that they possess a basic sense of right and wrong.

I mean, if you think that the average person is basically a scammer at heart, okay... Maybe you come from a low-trust culture, I don't know. I don't think most people who come from high-trust cultures would behave this way or think that behaving this way is okay.

>Thunderbird is a messaging/communications client

It's an email client.

>But 24 years later encrypted email is still a mess.

By design. Why do you think gmail strips encrypted archive attachments? Surprised they even allow S/MIME.

IRC was 28 million, I take it?

>However I think a substantial number of posts are creative writing exercises

A lot of division trolling going on there, trying to foment labor militancy. r/antiwork is the most visible facet of it, endlessly trying to encourage strikes, calling out, sandbagging, etc. This overemployed stuff (people blatantly bragging about how they're getting so much money for barely working and how you're stupid if you don't try and scam the system) is another facet of it.

It's the usual suspects exploiting and widening any and all divisions in society they can find.

>GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it.

GPT-3, I think, is most dangerous when it comes to reducing the amount of propaganda a human has to write in order to be 'taken seriously.' Long essays and long articles in major publications are taken seriously, but how many people read to the end? With GPT-3 a human propagandist can get away with writing a headline and initial paragraph. The filler text - that's required to make the article 'weighty' enough to be taken seriously can be GPT-3. That's one of the initial applications I see in terms of manufacturing consent and propaganda.

>probably do software development

Could they get hired at a tech company and put in level-appropriate work for two years? Without domain-specific knowledge and experience? You're saying 'work hard for two years' presumably by that you mean produce level-appropriate or above-level-appropriate work?

You're basically saying that you think just anybody off the street with a 100+ IQ can 'just get hired' at a tech firm and do dev work, for two years, and then coast?

Can you give a verbatim example prompt? Because my understanding is that GPT-3 works by generating responses based on seed phrases, not from arbitrary instructions.

Parents and govt have to clamp down hard and fast on this shit or there's going to be issues. Major major issues. It's not 'a mistake' that 'the algorithms' teach American kids to smash up their schools, it's cyberwarfare and we're losing.

Sure; if you can do the work. If you can't do the work...

>The guy was on something like a three month contract, and a good chunk of that time was on-boarding then slowly getting suspicious.

My perception after reading a lot of this thread is that there's so much bloat and checked-outness in the tech sector that it's probably very feasible as an employment strategy to bullshit your way into multiple 3-month contracts, sandbag your way through the onboardings then fail to be renewed (without having done a day's productive work) then rinse and repeat indefinitely.

I don't know how much longer that will persist now that the free money tap has been turned off, though.

It's another world from the startup sector I know where you could tell within a week that a guy wasn't any good and you'd instantly show them the door because you couldn't afford the dead weight for literally another day. shrug

>The other point, since this is FAANG, how is the conversation going to go with HR if I want to terminate someone because they won't turn on their camera?

Well, I guess going by what you've said they won't care either. I don't know how you can run a company productively over the long term if nobody cares, though.

>the problem took care of itself

Yeah and how many other employees took themselves out the door because they had to compensate for the nonperformer? I've been in teams with these sandbags and it's infuriating.

>If you know the voice of the people you work with and actually pay attention to their work, do screenshares, etc. it’s really obvious if they know what is going on and if they are doing the work.

This is also fine. But look at the reply below yours, when the 'team manager' is littering their comments with 'my top performers are ghosts' and 'I don't care.'

Your strategy involves focus and care applied through one perspective. My strategy involves focus and care applied through another perspective. Yours is arguably better, but I don't think mine is insecure, mine is perhaps a reaction to some of the nonsense I'm seeing in this thread in which managers admit they have staff who they think are outsourcing their work or just can't do the job but are 'uncomfortable' dealing with it. I don't think they're uncomfortable, I just think they don't care. I can't stand don't carers. I've had to work on too many teams managed by don't carers and staffed with don't carers and I just don't get the mentality. It annoys me.

>Not a whole lot you can do since it would be really hard to prove any kind of malfeasance, and to make the accusation would just make you look crazy and paranoid.

No no, it's trivial to prove. You just ask them to work from a supervised location for a short period of time and that they can't have their phone at their desk. You just have to care.

In the UK it's 'obtaining a pecuniary gain by deception' the same as lying on your CV. If you're routinely outsourcing parts of your job (because you can't do it yourself) then you've met the standard for prosecution.

Poverty traps are a minority that haven't had their civil rights granted yet?

I had the same exact thought. Nintendo don't even have a 'logo' as such, do they, they use a logotype, the word 'Nintendo' outlined in a rounded rectangle.

Are you European or UK/IE? I notice that despite selling well in Europe the Nintendo product has a lot less 'consumer enthusiasm' there compared to in the US where people are absolutely cuckoo for the stuff.

The single most suitable application is manufacturing consent on social media. Reddit is absolutely full of GPT-3 bots. SEO is another big use.

>POP3

Which works so well across multiple devices, which is a very very common use-case for email. Either you have some homebrew sync going on or you have a very simple email use-case.

Headless chrome isn't a third party client.