> predictably do what they are programmed to do
And now they predictably do what they are not programmed to do.
2,188 karma · joined August 12, 2021
And now they predictably do what they are not programmed to do.
Is there a specific reason why you can't shell into ECS? IIRC, I was able to do so by following the guide [0].
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/containers/new-using-amazon-ecs...
It's not an espresso.
Which one is it? And, more importantly, why not name it?
Yeah, and the problem arises simply because some people are unable to accept the fact. They insist that if LLM-assisted coding doesn't work for one, it's because “you're holding it wrong”.
> except the one you imagine is true
I'm not sure what you mean. I told about an example of manipulation that I witnessed. I later learned that these were common tactics employed by con-artists, scammers, etc.
> Don’t project them on people you don’t know and seemingly have no actual first-hand experience with.
I don't need first-hand experience with someone to understand that they are a manipulator. I am comfortable forming my opinion based on reports.
> I can see people concluding that they have been lied to rather than accept that they had been intellectually beaten.
There are two angles to this: from an individual perspective and from a collective one.
One's interaction with such a manipulator isn't a single shot. There is not a single event that they are “beaten”. First, one gets persuaded --- you might argue that there's nothing wrong with a skillful persuasion. At some point they realize that the reality is not in line with their expectations. They bring the point up to the manipulator and ask for a change, this time in more concrete terms. The manipulator agrees with the change, negotiates compromises, and the relationship continues. After some time the manipulated party realizes that things are not going in the direction they desire. This time they ask for more concrete terms, without accepting any compromises. The manipulator accepts, yet continues to act against the terms. The manipulated party is now angry and directly confronts the manipulator. The manipulator apologizes and tells that none of it was intentional, and asks for another chance. However, at that point, the manipulator has run out of “politically correct” “persuasion tactics”, and tells blatant lies to make the other party behave.
From a collective perspective, even those “politically correct” “persuasion tactics” are discovered to be lies, because what the manipulator told different parties are in direct opposition to each other, i.e., they cannot all be truths.
> Helen Toner suggested that they effectively ambushed Altman because if he had time to respond to allegations he could have provided a reasonable explanation. It did not reflect well on her.
I understand how her behavior may raise a flag for the unsuspecting, but it was exactly the right one. Manipulators prey on the benefit of the doubt. If Toner were to bring Altman's behavior into attention of others, no doubt that Altman would manipulate them successfully.
It's unfortunate that many people are unaware of these tactics and assume the best of intentions, when such assumptions fuel the manipulation that they would better avoid.
What? OpenAI was a non-profit until Sam made it for-profit.
No, the Google deal hasn't shipped yet.
Pay and worth are different, just like price and value are. Garbage collection is worth a lot, but its pay is determined by market dynamics. As the number of unemployed increases, it will pay less.
No, such a discovery wouldn't be possible, because nobody would pay that amount to someone who was willing to accept $200K.
> They're locked in an auction and the market price for your time is nowhere near $200k.
There is no magical market price that exists outside the market dynamics. When bidders know that one's current salary is $150K, their willingness to offer higher salaries will diminish accordingly.
I can see this happening when a developer is authorized to generate, but not to register. So, they just reuse an already-registered one.
Yep, and he claimed that he would colonize Mars soon.
The problem is that many times I have not read the definition to remember. Debugger puts me into a context where I have to figure out what `p` stands for. I go up the call stack and now there's `s` to be deciphered. Worse is the reuse of `p` for person, product, part, etc. in different contexts.
Debugging is not the only problem. Code is read rarely linearly. Many times I browse different uses of a function, or see how a data structure is modified in different contexts. Looking up single letter variables is just a waste of time.
No, it's not. When you see `p.Age`, you have to go back and find the body of the loop, see what it operates on and decipher what p stands for. When you see `person.Age`, you understand it. I've never understood what is gained by using `p` instead of spelling it out as `person`.
If people don't read because the text is an unreadable mess, none of the points get across.
Exactly. I counted and reported my results in a previous thread [0].
Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.