DirkH

Then the 2 of you probably just disagree on what constitutes socially acceptable free expression.

We've crossed multiple "ultimate red flags". Won't be surprising if it happens.

Reading sound takes like this vs seemingly everyone on reddit celebrating his death makes me quite sad.

People get rejected from companies based on nothing but vibes of personality fit every day.

Specialized research AI agents are coming at which point we'll have numerous LLMs running and verifying experiments and creating a higher quality text corpus than the 2014-2020 halcyon, which is then used for other LLMs to be trained on.

It will be the reverse I suspect. Eventually we will see that LLM quality is lower when it is training data from 2014-2020 and will chalk it up to human limitations and the data not being written with a laser-focused goal of training better AI.

Something that Google, in hindsight, regrets.

I feel like all the BS we were taught about architecture design principles multi-AZ, failover strategies, graceful degradation etc was gaslighting us all into thinking any of out work on it actually matters.

This isn't true, but it feels like this when the entire engineering world order seems to actually run on single-point-of-failures where one CEO just messages another when some 3rd party is down. And reputational risk here is completely safeguarded because as long as everyone is down you are fine. Use a service everyone uses and it goes down = no reputational risk. Use a more robust architecture and make some mistake = massive reputational risk and everyone asks why you don't use what everyone else uses.

Blind leading the blind and all that.

I just want to point put there that your argument's exact same rhetorical structure could be (and has been) used to deny "rape culture":

E.g. - "Rape is illegal and prosecuted, so how can we have a 'rape culture'?" - "That's not rape culture, that's just individual bad actors" - "People criticizing women's clothing choices is normal social interaction" - "Rape culture is a partisan feminist concept like [insert dismissive comparison]"

The parallel is that both involve:

1. Demanding an impossibly narrow definition (complete silence vs. systematic legal tolerance) 2. Dismissing patterns as "just normal social behavior" 3. Focusing on whether the most extreme version exists rather than whether there's a meaningful phenomenon worth discussing 4. Using the term's political associations to avoid engaging with the substance

The irony is particularly sharp when you argue that "telling someone to shut up" is quintessentially social while simultaneously arguing that coordinated efforts to damage someone's reputation/livelihood for speech don't constitute a distinct social phenomenon worth naming.

Never works

No silly, politicians specifically will exempt from such monitoring. So duh, not every single person will be monitored.

This was a once unscripted statement that she never repeated again her entire campaign. She expressed regret immediately after making it (not after losing) explaining how it was grossly generalistic but stood by that it does describe a large chunk of Trump's base.

Can you name one time Trump immediately regretted what he said about the Left and explained that it was an overgeneralization? Also again, in Clinton's case it was a single unscripted statement. By contrast Trump has a pattern of calling opponents vermin, the anti-christ, evil, warning of a bloodbath to come... Yea the left's attacks on the right just don't seem nearly as bad especially if it is just being called "deplorable" once. I could write a book that is just hateful Trump quotes. Ganna print it and give it to my son one day as inspiration for how to be an honourable leader. /s

I say all this as a Canadian that would have voted for Trump in 2016 if I could have.

You check your banking apps multiple times each day with the frequency and unpredictability expected from messaging apps?

If not that frequently or unpredictably then you could just plan to use your laptop for banking some time during the day.

What website is this?

The left is statistically more likely to publicly endorse political violence looking at data over the past few years. The right is more likely to actually commit political violence though looking over all data over decades and that still holds today.

Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States

One side is all shout and no bite. The other is no shout and then eat your fucking face.

I'll take the idiots shouting but not actually killing if I had to pick. But I won't lie the choice still makes me feel dirty.

Bimodal distribution. Edgelords are amplified as is conformity. People are being pushed more and more to the opposite ends.

Both conclusions can be right at the same time.

That was an absolutely lovely read. I did not think I would get so invested. However... I didn't know she died as well so the final sentence on her wiki article caught my off-guard :(

140k places you in the top 1-2% of the entire planet in earnings.

I can think of 2 US companies I know of off the top of my head that deliberately hire Europeans since they get talent at a steep discount (especially if you pay them remotely). From what I've seen Ukraine and Estonia are considered goldmines of cheap talent. I doubt they are the only ones.

Bald speculation and opinion would be that this massive imbalance between earnings is causally tied to merit to a degree strong enough that we can confidently say European software engineers are as a whole a whopping 50% less competent than US counterparts. This to me is ridiculous, not because it sounds offensive or anything, it's just obviously untrue for Europe. This is just how we've set up our geopolitics with downstream affects being massive imbalance between earnings of countries.

I wonder if anything would have been done if there wasn't a public uproar.

I've yet to meet anyone who thinks it a certainty in the community. Even my short-timeline friends who don't contribute to retirement savings and otherwise have clearly seen their mental health deteriorate over the stress still don't think it a certainty at all. Just something they reason as likely enough that it is reasonable to stress out over and change life plans over.

I don't think it was dumb of scientists during the nuclear arms race in the 50s to think there was a significant enough chance humans were going to go extinct soon (years, not decades) because of the developments they were seeing and as a result getting very anxious and doing things like stopping their retirement savings plans.

The fears from that era were 100% well-founded within the group or scientists who were most on the know about developments. Same goes for AI development.

Talking to people I have met who used to work at OpenAI as AI researchers and left because of AI safety concerns paints a very clear "these are reasonable-headed people with well-informed beliefs" when they say things like there is a small but significant chance we lose control by 2027. Because humans are ganna human and place shareholder value and beating China over safety.

Name one other industry that has adherents that say its products will kill us all as a means to boost sales. Assuming you're actually claiming people are actually saying AI might kill us all to boost AI market share. Like this is absurd. Apply it to any other industry:

Oil companies: "Climate change will soon end the human race and we are pushing scary narrative here so that people will buy more oil"

Biotech: "Our lethal compounds can be synthesized to a degree to end the human race. Clearly me scaring you like this will boost sales"

Arms dealers: "We are selling bombs that will guaruntee end the human race with 90% certainty. Wanna buy?"

It makes no sense. Hundreds of top AI searchers with zero financial stake in the private sector have raised the alarm about AI posing a risk on the same order of magnitude as nukes, climate change and bioterrorism.

Saying this is all just commercializing the human fear response is the same sort of lazy dismissive reasoning I can imagine was used when the first warning signs from epidemiologists came out regarding covid-19. "You're just trying to get funding for your anti-covid-19 research or some other political reason & and you're just using covid-19 fear to get what you want, how dare you!"

How much risk their is I can agree is up for debate, but that the motivations of people bringing up thee is a risk is just to commercialize things is so blatantly false it is a comical view to hold at this point. One of the fucking founders of AI Geoffrey Hinton spent the entire time during his Nobel prize award speech warning AI has a significant chance of killing us all if trends continue.

Like what, you think his old ass really cares about boosting book sales or trending on Twitter for saying something contrarian or something? No, he sincerely believes what he is saying.

If none of this convinces you something is up, what will? What do you need to see for it to be reasonable to go from completely dismiss to consider it as possibly serious?

Rationalists and effective altruism have reasoning under uncertainty as cornerstones of their respective movements.

There is an entire philosophical theory called deep cluelessness which is far more nuanced than just "unsure" which was built on by an Oxford EA philosopher.

I personally know multiple people in the movement who say they are deeply clueless on matters where they can altogether affect where hundreds of thousands of dollars under their care is directed.

And guess what, it does give them pause and they don't just follow some weird entirely untested or nonsense set of axioms. They consider second order effects, backfire risk and even hedging interventions in case their worldview is incorrect. All this careful reasoning I just never ever see in any any other social movement that has money it can direct where there is clear uncertainty with how best to allocate it.

This is basically exactly the same kind of criticism the far-left throws at effective altruism (EA), except they call EA moronic hyper-capitalism that is too fixated on quantifying cause and effect with modern economic theories that it ignores the systemic injustices inherent within the systems it works within. As a consequence it is doomed from the onset and completely ineffective and is only counterproductive and any other conclusion is dumb.

Rationality also last I checked doesn't really build ought statements insofar as morality is concerned. You can use it for good or evil and still be rational.

There is no contradiction in being very evil and very rational. It is easy to think of brilliant scientists who were evil beyond evil throughout history as an analogous example.

Give it a year or 2. Its not like 2 years ago everyone wasn't saying it would be 10+ years before AI can do what it does now.

Fixed by restarting tabs?

And if any law ever goes after them it'll be years before any court charges them with anything.

By that time the amount of money that will have been made can justify and exceed whatever fine they might expect to get in court.

All banks I know that do this have an alternative 2FA you can use instead tho.

G maps is surprisingly doable. Been using it as a web app for years now whenever my main map app CityMapper fails.

For traveling I have found for cities where it is available CityMapper (started by ex-Google maps devs iirc) is superior to Google Maps in every way.

Lol, I appreciate your reality check