QuiDortDine

Also not the French sci-fi/fantasy periodical.

I think the original and much more famous reference is the paperclip maximizer theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...

They would still have to pay themselves, presumably with investments and donations (and subsidies).

Simpler but funny tech support anecdote: at some point, someone called me over and said their keyboard would print the letter 'e' repeatedly. I tried another keyboard of course, and it still did it! Rebooted the computer, still 'e's all over.

Finally, I looked at her mouse: it was half of a wireless mouse-keyboard combo. Turns out, the keyboard hadn't been turned off before it went in the pile, and other keyboards on top of it were pressing its keys, or rather just the one key.

Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.

I seem to recall doing some math and finding out the limit for some models of LLM was pretty close to that. If so, this book is likely the result of a single prompt, which seems to me like a lazy way to be lazy.

Pretty bad UI, I just thought there were more outfits.

They are truly boringly nice.

Little Nully we call him

How did you even get that username? Short ones go so fast, you must have been in the first 1000 users!

I've been coding for most of my life and I can't believe some people would choose some of these tricks when python has much simpler syntax for most of these.

The first, *_, last trick for example would be particularly obnoxious to encounter. The first element is my_list[0], last is my_list[-1]. Dead simple, way easier to understand at a glance.

Likewise. I used it 10 years ago and it looks the same. Good luck trying to get non-technical people to use it.

"Fine default" indeed, as the alternative for a Scrum-inspired process is often nothing. I expect a lot of people hating on it come from big corps, where bureaucracy is already stifling. In a startup, Scrum may be your best way to protect an inexperienced development team from unmeasurable stakeholder expectations.

Yep. Just look at Tumblr.

As someone who was on reddit for about as long, I miss that. But I wonder if it's really reddit I miss, or the naive web we had back then, that allowed people to get excited? Back when everything was not engineered specifically to grab the most attention, I felt more like we were actually communicating. Nowadays we're just collectively filtering noise it seems.

I used to work with Drupal, it was a security nightmare, like almost all community-based extension system (see also npm). Modules made Drupal popular, they also made it close to impossible to have any sense of security, as only very popular modules would be audited, and you basically needed a panoply of smaller ones depending on your use case.

I wonder if that's changed over time, for instance I could see GPT3.5 doing a good job of summarily inspecting modules systematically.

If there was something to leak, it was always going to. Just a matter of when. Pretending otherwise is just security theater.

Or rather, copyright is as long as Disney needs it to be. The length keeps getting pushed back, suspiciously close to when Mickey Mouse would enter public domain.

All this to say, don't expect anything to enter public domain anytime soon.

The problem is there are no sources and many claims. I can barely tell what point, if any, they're trying to make.

They don't seem to know about the g factor, which I've linked to many times today. The existence of it means one thing: smart is smart. If you're above average at "mental labor", you're also above average at learning the tools you can leverage to make your labor better faster. This would explain why the calculator didn't shatter the economic predictiveness of the g factor, and neither did the computer, and neither will ChatGPT until it becomes a true AGI. Until mental labor stops being a thing, g factor will always be a strong (though not absolute) predictor of economic success, and so will IQ tests, since they measure it.

I don't see how the comment is related to the article however. The g factor going down in general wouldn't change this correlation; it's still better to be smarter no matter what the average is.

HBD is so fringe I had a hard time googling it. Just because a subset of a subfield is politically motivated and hateful does not invalidate the whole field. That intelligence testing can be misrepresented to defend racism is an argument against humans, not against the science.

Meanwhile, unbiased research has shown for a long time that there is no significant variations in IQ between races when considering socioeconomic factors. We've determined this with, guess what, psychometry, and it is the overwhelming consensus in psychology. If this was your main gripe with it, rest assured that the field you so underestimate is entirely dismissive of it.

It seems to me you're just looking for ways to dismiss decades of research based on misinformation perpetuated, overwhelmingly, by non-experts. Congratulations, you are in this group.

A big issue here is "production" is basically anything that happens in front of a computer. Individual workers will be fired, yes, but entire companies, sectors even, can now be made obsolete overnight. What happens when thinking is no longer a requirement for any job?

> It’s something people love to be, but in a world with recorded audio, you don’t need as many musicians as you once needed (and it was actually a fairly common job).

I do wonder if people are going to start valuing in-person experiences more and more, as anything on the internet can now be faked (or AI-generation, which, artistically speaking, is close to the same thing). If we do, might we see a boom of live performers? Will minstrels make a comeback? An interesting possibility, if still not reassuring.

Respectfully, you chose the wrong hill to die on. Psychology has many squishy parts, but psychometry is basically the closest thing it has to a hard science.

The other comment adresses your NQ argument, but here's something I don't understand: "There's a very uncomfortable result about IQ tests that a generation of psychologists have tried to explain away"

This reeks of anti-intellectualism by the way ("can't trust the experts!"), but I am curious to know what you're referring to. It can't be the validity or reliability of IQ tests, surely? Both have been very solidly established for a long time.

As horrified as I am for people whose jobs will be lost (including mine, quite possibly), "content" is such a plague on humanity I'm glad it will soon be devalued into the ground. Moutains of useless tweets and blog posts will be rendered meaningless when ChatGPT has all the answers. Dust to dust.

This is a terrible analogy, IQ tests measure something real and objective called the g factor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Also, intelligence tests are but a tiny part of psychology, I would hardly call it a "whole field".

This is a common belief that used to be true, but no longer is. IQ tests are reasonably good at measuring general intelligence, ie the g factor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Circular reporting will be the only reporting!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

When it comes to manage the insanely complex systems that form society, I think I would choose an incorruptible (if biased) AI before a fallible human being any day.

> But why should the poor accept this inequality? Will AI protect the wealth of the rich who inherited it? Why should it?

Why do they accept it now? The best predictor of financial success is the parents' wealth [1]. Society as a meritocracy is a myth, yet we all plow on. I don't see what would change this.

1: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Personally, I don't want it stopped, just labeled and controlled. Don't sell me AI-made books and tell me they're written by humans. Don't send me AI-written emails, if it's not worth writing it's not worth reading. Don't use AI to tailor my experiences to be as addictive as possible, oh wait...