ToucanLoucan

I've been thinking for awhile trying to find something witty to say but I just keep coming back to how bone-achingly accurate this is.

Our country is on fire and the best thing the Government has for us is a custom ChatGPT bot that will look through it's websites, and probably give you some info from them.

I'm so tired.

Honestly that series of blog posts that came across here semi-recently about what an utter disaster the Azure team is (through little fault of their own, mind you), combined with a lot of things I've read about the development behind Halo Infinite, have convinced me Microsoft is to avoided whenever possible. It's not even that they're too big to care, though that is an issue. It's that organizationally they are SO reliant on short-term contractors and junior devs plugging away with copilot, along with an ever more exhausted group of seniors who actually work for them but are continually disempowered, that I think it's safe to say anything they manage to ship is a minor miracle if it works at all, and it's certainly not going to have any guarantee at all of solid software engineering fundamentals.

And to be clear, this is not an issue with them using contractors, overseas or otherwise, or with their senior dev staff, or even with AI really. It's an issue with them organizationally being so incredibly penny-pinching, and so dedicated to shipping new shit versus fixing anything long term, constantly chasing new revenue and letting their existing offerings rot.

If a Microsoft product is good nowadays, it is literally a miracle.

> I know you didn’t say that, I said that. I said it because I was adding emphasis to the idea that these people are, in a sense, victims.

And I agree but your comment, IMO, reads accusatory. If that's not the case no worries.

> It’s not that they can’t read anything at all, it’s that they require more basic words. A chatbot is specifically the perfect thing to keep explaining something in more and more specific and basic ways as necessary.

I mean, sure, if it's accurate. Given these things' propensity to just make shit up, as stated, that feels like a way to make the problem worse, if anything.

Edit: And again it feels like a missing necessary component to this is: if a user of this LLM is told by that LLM that it's legal to, I dunno, dump waste oil in a drainage ditch, then that statement needs to be treated as authoritative and it's no longer appropriate to ticket the individual when they get caught doing that. It's similar in my mind to car dealers deploying these stupid things and some people managing to get them to agree to sell them a Toyota Tundra for $200. If you're going to put them in a place where people can reasonably assume "this looks like a proper avenue of communication" then what it says needs to be binding.

And if it can't be, then don't use it.

They insert themselves into this chain for profit and complain about it. I really think that adds a thick layer to the hypocrisy that people, or at least me, feel is especially distasteful.

No LLM products would exist without the avalanche of largely non-consensual use of IP to create them, full stop. Any of these companies doing this and then turning around and complaining when their IP is "breached" are going to met with a chorus of tiny violins.

I didn't say anything about them being incapable. That said I'm curious what a chatbot solves for people you concede have been failed by our culture to a degree where they can't read?

As an American, I've never had issues navigating government websites. That said, I'm also not part of the apparently huge portion of our population who can't read above 6th grade, which I suspect is more of the issue than anything said here thus far.

Of course we should be, but the line went down, therefore we need 600 think-pieces attempting to shame us for caring for our health.

Wife and I used to be avid drinkers but with the expansion of legal cannabis, it's just not as good of an option. I'll still make myself a negroni or an old fashioned on occasion, just because they're delicious, but I haven't drank-to-get-drunk in YEARS. If I'm actually trying to unwind (and who isn't given the sheer STATE of our world!) I'm spoiled for choices of substances that both don't interact with my depression nearly as badly as alcohol and, as a bonus, don't make me gain weight like an inflation fetish character.

The alcohol industry won spectacularly for decades a game of public policy and image where alcohol, a substance connected to industrial quantities of human death and suffering, was somehow the "accepted and normal" way to get fucked up when you wanted to be, even though again, numerous alternatives existed that were better for you. They're going to go through a similar process to tobacco I think, which is to say: it'll still be around, but it will shrink to an industry sized appropriately for the actual demand of it's product.

Yawn.

I don't think you can call voters a level of accountability given how trivial it is for voters to be lied to. Like politicians lie constantly, not even in the weasely "well I said this, not this" sort of thing, I mean they just lie. They tell easily dis-proven lies, on camera, with no accountability from the media or any kind of overseeing entity.

I mean sure, but even if people have the ability to select a different app store, why are they going to do this? Even if you MAKE them do it, on device setup as was commented elsewhere, do we mandate Apple put the 3rd party stores above their own? Can Apple indicate which is theirs, or does this bias the answer the user gives?

And more importantly I didn't ask what the user is picking or not picking, I'm asking: why is there an app store out there that's better than the main one? Is a 3rd party app store going to spin up a CDN, a transactions system, handle the customer service involved there, etc. and then just... not do all the evil shit Google and Apple are doing now, which is why their app stores make so much money? You're asking businesses to enter a market with established competitors with solid and wildly profitable business models, and to just have them make less money for the principle of it. Which like, I agree with, but you're gonna have a SHORT list of investors if that's your pitch.

So what stops these other mythical app stores from being just as predatory and exploitative as the first-party ones?

You can continue that all the way up to the President, a 37-felony convict.

It feels like every new innovation in our society now is just a new way to diffuse responsibility.

FWIW I use a lot of Hue in my house, and I've not had that experience. But absolutely validate the frustration. That said, in the present, Hue seems to be one of the most if not the most stable ecosystems for smart lighting. Which isn't to say it's perfect but I have far fewer problems than most people I'm friends with, haha.

I still have a lot of the same stuff I bought, which falls into two main categories:

* Hue bulbs, which get active updates and are still maintained by Philips, and honestly are pretty good, if insanely overpriced, especially the HomeKit bridge

* "iHome" smart outlets which I belieeeeeeeve were once upon a time made by Belkin? They've ended support but the outlets themselves are very reliable, and pairable/managable entirely within the Home app so I barely noticed when they were discontinued. Picked up a 4-pack of them on fleabay recently for $20 and they work great still.

Mind you I'm not saying I'm great at this, if anything I'm lucky in that I really haven't had any smart home tech go poorly for me, apart from some other outlets that were some no-name brand. They're still kicking around my house but they need power cycles far more often than the iHome ones.

> Unfortunately for them most folks don’t seem to be falling for that trick.

Well everyone alive has been subject to an avalanche of AI-based products. Like even if you understand nothing about the tech, the fact that an LLM can't even manage to check the status of an order without weird issues makes the notion that it's going to go all SKYNET pretty hard to fit in the brain.

It's not poison, it's a broken feature. And you have the source code. Fix it if you like.

I don't think paywalling a non-fucked experience is a good solution for... anything, really. Like why do we have to charge people to get out of the fuck barrel? How about we just not have it?

The problem goes deeper than this though.

Say we do what you're suggesting. There's now three stores on Android devices when you take them out of the box: Google Play, Crumbt, and Dipple. Crumbt quickly gains a reputation for hosting sketchy software, with some diamonds in the rough, but users also regularly report getting malware on their phones. That said everything is free, which makes it the #1 stop for people who have to buy the down-market phones anyway because they can't afford apps either. Dipple, meanwhile, promises no AI features or content, and immediately gets a following with the more monied crowd that not only will pay for apps, but prefers to to avoid ads and spammy generative content.

The problem, as I see it, is we still have the old, bad experience from google, and we now have one other experience that lets anything in, so people are still getting malware, and we have still a third that's offering premium features to users with cash to spend and leaves everyone else out in the cold.

I know I'm being negative with my examples, but at the same time, the PROBLEM, as I see it, is power asymmetry: lack of oversight on the part of the platforms means nasty shit gets through, and lack of actionable routes to be remediated means the risk lands squarely on the user, who is disempowered already. Additional app markets solve none of that.

Like, sure, an app market could come along promising to be on the user's side: it will immediately not attract developers, because developers will (correctly) see that it's riskier there than elsewhere. And there's not really a monetary reason to make an ethical app store, whatever that happens to mean, because far more money is made being an unethical one that hangs it's users out to dry.

I just don't think these are problems yet more markets can solve, because fundamentally, what's broken about them is what makes them so wildly profitable. And I can't fathom another store not coming along and, even if not at first, doing the exact same thing again anyways that Play has already done, because it works. Because Play itself was immitating/innovating on the same axis as Apple's App Store.

I mean you’ll never fully remove politics from the powerful conceptually, it’s just not possible, they’re too close to the levers of power. That said I think it’s a cop out of sorts to say because people “have political opinions” about the subject of an SA accusation that that would necessarily bias judgement. The real problem is the lack of investigative resources for these accusations, which itself leads to lists like these being published: when people can’t seek justice from the justice system they will do so in other ways.

We’ve had the Epstein lists for how long now? And how many on it have seen justice?

These things can all be true, sure. What’s also true is what the GP points out: the only time the preemptive doubt rolls out is for accusations of sexual impropriety, which can’t be disentangled from the fact that most accusations against the powerful of sexual impropriety come from women.

And given how abysmally low the rate of false allegations is maybe we should all do a bit better and stop running interference for our oligarch class, especially since sexual impropriety seems to be how they operate in a lot of domains, not just with adult women.

I often think about this while watching Hoarders, and this is hitting similar neurons so if you'll forgive the off-topic-ish nature...

I think more than anything this is the ooze you get out of the sides of societies that focus so terribly much on consumer culture. Advertising nowadays is absolutely incredible at driving the creation of what feels like "needs" in people. In my thirties I started transitioning to a woman, full time, and as a result I've bought and donated shit tons of clothes. This experience has made me realize how bizarrely attached I am to those clothes, and also to so many other things I own that I wouldn't have remotely called sentimental. Yet between growing up in a heavily consumerist society, and my environmental side, I feel so much regret and shame when simply throwing things away. Worthless things. Things my rational mind knows damn well I have no use for, that have no reason to exist in my home.

Mind you I'm someone who is familiar with facing down my inner demons. I can't fathom trying to deal with this if you're not someone like me who has gone to lengths to educate myself, to get therapy, and not only gone those lengths but had the resources to do so!

Then I watch hoarders and I see these old, broken down people who have massive, beautiful homes I would love to have, and they've stacked every room to the ceiling with... shit. Sometimes literally shit, but more often it's just junk. Things that were on sale. Each thing advertised to them, promised that it would make them the person they were meant to be, or to help them lose that weight they've been trying to lose for 50 years. That piece of furniture that would finally complete the room. And they did that on, and on, and on, and now their beautiful home is ruined, and most of the stuff is too. And oftentimes the person themselves are harmed too, with early onset illness and injury.

America needs to get our shit together. And worse still we've exported our disease in great quantity to the rest of the world, both as trash, and as the vacuous hollow culture that consumerism drives.

Yeah I'm guessing if someone walked up to you and crowed a bunch of "common sense" that don't align at all with your own lived experience and understanding of how your own body works, you know the one you're living in and actively in the process, with the assistance of medical doctors, of modifying, you'd be pretty unconvinced of that too.

That doesn't mean people who know what they're talking about are "ideological," it means you're talking out your backside.

Well firstly, specifically in gambling, self-reported statistics from the NCPG indicate that of the 60%-ish of the population that will engage in gambling, about 5-7% develop problems around that gambling. So it isn't 99.9%, it's more like 95%.

Secondly, let's take this out of percentages: That 60%-ish slice is 150 million people, so your conservative 5% number of people who will have problems amounts to 7.5 million people. So like, if you were being a bit hyperbolic but not terribly, you could say your fun hobby of gambling which you do responsibly, is still responsible for 7.5 million people's addiction. Which I agree isn't a reason to BAN it, but I would say is a reason to, I dunno, not make it so you can do it on your phone? Which was the status quo for the majority of the time we've had smartphones. Like a major deterrent to sports gambling being addictive, even where it's permitted, was that you had to actually go to a bookie's and place bets, and collect your winnings there, not just sit on your sofa doing it on your phone.

Thirdly if you want to expand this into video games, I think addiction there is pretty problematic too, and has gotten substantially worse in the last ten years or so, specifically with the advent of micro-transactions. When I was a kiddo if you were "addicted" to something like Grand Theft Auto, the worst thing that would probably happen to you is your parents taking away your XBox and telling you take a fuckin shower and/or go outside. Or coworkers telling you you smelled, if you happened to be older. The worst thing you could say from that era would be something like WoW subscription fees, and while that's definitely ethically gray for me, I think they can make an argument on the fact that you just buying the game can't offset the costs they face in keeping it updated, maintaining the online services to enable it, the moderation of that platform, etc. etc. etc. However modern Gacha games especially have taken a LOT of heat for flagrantly predatory monetization practices that greatly affect people with certain kinds of neurodivergencies, who spend tens of thousands of dollars on them, oftentimes against the wishes of their carers or spouses. That certainly sucks, and I don't think there's any kind of ethical argument one can make in favor of it, it's just straight exploitation of vulnerable people.

TV addiction is gonna be it's own paragraph but most of the people in my parents generation think the Democrats are communists and are so utterly brain-rotted from the idiot box that they can't even answer basic questions about the reality they live in, so I'm gonna say that's kind of "enough said" there.

There's always going to be an element of addiction in anything, you're correct, because addiction is really just getting hooked, to a problematic degree, on the sense of pleasure you get from doing or consuming a thing, and that thing can be basically anything. That said, a whole lot of very large, very valuable businesses, including many that are owned and operated by the State, take advantage of that to push predatory products onto vulnerable populations, and that's kinda fucked, no?

Because these problems have never been dealt with. We scold victims and sell this "individual responsibility"/"bootstraps" bullshit to avoid doing so. Some of us create these products that actively fuck with people's ability to make decisions well, and then we yell at those people and tell them to act right.

The only difference now is the Internet both makes it frictionless and therefore so much easier to do, and the Internet also then let's us see into the lives being ruined in the process. But the problem remains exactly the same: if you, as a person, have no ethics and see no issue in causing misery at scale, you can make a LOT of fucking money in our society. And not only will you likely not be charged, now they'll probably call you an innovator and put you on a magazine.

And then we wonder why everything is getting worse all the time.

And before anyone tries the gotcha with me, no I do not work at any firm like this. No gambling, no social media, no recommendation algorithms. The company I work at comes by it honestly: we sell solutions to problems people actually have. And no we're not worth 66 trillion dollars but, we can all sleep at night. And that's not so bad.

I mean I can't speak for everyone but in my mind, sending lmgtfy was not only always insulting, it was meant to be. It's saying "I know you have access to the tools you need to answer this question, why are you asking me, and here's some instructions on how you use this tool in the future so you don't need to be asking me foolish questions."

And while I generally believe we should be pro-social in our communications both with each other as software engineers and with others who don't know what we know, I think it's also fair game to point out that the thing being asked of you is commonly available knowledge. Google may suck as my sibling comment points out, and I agree, but filtering good info from info dumps, be that Claude or Google search, is a life skill that's more critical now than ever. And if you work in tech, really at any level, you know how to do that.

> Additionally, you have to realize that a major concern on the right is that academia itself has become ideological to the point where only politically acceptable studies can be 1) studied and more importantly 2) published. There's a lot of people out there afraid to speak what appears to them (and their work) to be truth for fear of the backlash and career consequences.

Oh complete and utter twaddle.

Academia trends toward progressive views because the more educated you get, assuming you have principles and employ critical thinking consistently, the more ridiculous the positions of the right tend to look. You cannot look at the totality of climate change data and go "well clearly it's not man made" unless you either don't understand it, or cherry pick it to oblivion. You can't look at the history of Austerity politics, deployed both here and in the UK by our respective free market goblins (Reagan and Thatcher) and hold that it's good for anyone at all apart from those who are already wealthy.

This boogeyman of BIG SCIENCE holding down all the conservatives is complete and utter dreck. Show me literally one example of it. Show me one individual who's life was ruined and their career decimated to uphold ideological ends.

Emailed!

And as a fellow enjoyer of HRT, I assure you it didn't enhance shit for me, beyond what I was hoping to get: longer, more full hair, boobies, and smoother skin.

My muscles are gone y'all. Like I've had to buy more breaker bars and larger tools so I can keep working on my cars, otherwise I simply could not break bolts anymore.

Because Republicans get fucking dog-walked on any issue of any importance. The only things they can ever even come close to claiming "victory" on are irrelevant nonsense that no serious person gives a fuck about.

There are now more bills attempting to "solve" the problem of trans girl's in sports (and it is girls, to be clear, trans boys are never an issue) than there are trans girls in sports. It's fucking pathetic.

As a fellow trans woman, we've been the scapegoat for reactionaries, at least documented, since the rise of the Third Reich. And if we're honest, probably before that.

Fixing society-scale problems is really hard. Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside is easy. People reliably choose easy.