michannne

The post I replied to suggested it is somehow reasonable to majorly inhibit a pleasure of life today so that others can potentially experience the inhibited pleasures in the future. The suggestion is comedic to me - "if you're worried about the decline of fish impacting your sushi eating habits, eat less sushi today so we can eat more sushi tomorrow", is what it reads as. The solution is to make more fish, not to have a segment of the population reduce fish consumption so another population can also consume fish. When the population of a country grows, the agricultural regions don't remain the same size - they grow to accommodate the growth in population. You increase your supply, not ration it out - that's how you end up with an abuse of power.

The majority of humans are indeed acting selfishly to maintain their own comfort level, yes. You can argue that they aren't, in which case I'd like to see the indication that either A) the majority of people are acting in the interest of others when they go about their daily business spreading the illness, or B) the majority of people are not preferring to maintain their comfort level.

It is proven for me as I can see both A and B are false.

You said the treadmill stops when you change public attitude, and you imply the terms Black and African American used to refer to black people are acceptable designations for groups of people as of now. I'm making the point that that is completely subjective, as in my case I don't like being referred to as an African American, because I'm not, and black is basically a synonym for "Not african american", yet these are the default terms and you say that there is "no further replacement". My point is that words change meaning all the time, we are not heading into some inevitable singularity where all of these words over here are objectively good in all situations and all of those words are objectively bad in all situations and this will remain so for eternity - language is not that stagnant nor black and white, and for me that is a good thing. It is 100% your personal opinion that you find the terms Black and African American acceptable designations for groups for the foreseeable future, but don't project your personal opinion onto others - I personally look forward to the day where people refer to me as Jamaican and not just "black" or mistakenly, African American, and in the same way there are those who hold the opposite opinion and those who don't want to be generalized at all. That you personally like or dont like a particular label has no bearing on whether or not everyone else agrees with your opinion.

Tl;dr your statement "The [euphemism] treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes" actually means "The euphemism treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes in such a way that I am personally comfortable with it's final state", because in reality the treadmill will never stop, someone will always push to keep it going, it's the reason why language shifts and changes over time.

You're missing the point spectactularly. Words do not exist in groups of "These are always ok to say" and "Never say these", their meaning depends entirely on context. You should be aware of this considering the main derogatory term for African Americans and other black people is also used as a synonym for "brother" depending on the context it is said. If you're saying that Jewish people should phase out this word because some people use it in a negative way, that's a flawed argument, it's akin to saying we should ban anything that can be used a weapon - meaningless considering anything can be used as a weapon.

Rather than trying to convince people that certain words are always ok or not ok to use, you should give reasons for others to reconsider their usage of the word and prompt them to think of the context before using the word. Then you let them make the choice of when to use it.

What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

It's still an error of "failure to understand meaning", so I can't see how this is somehow less of an issue. The prognosis is still the same either way because the only way to get GPT3 to respond in any "reasonable" way is it limit it to multiple choice and get lucky, which, again, proves the author's point further.

>also doesn’t make comparisons to human abilities unwarranted

But it does, that is the point the author is making - GPT cannot understand anything. It's a very silly argument to try and reduce your linguistic perception to be on the same level as GPT just to try and show that it possibly is understanding the text. The author's queries do a very good job at demonstrating that GPT at the very least cannot even tell when it is being asked a question. As you say it isn't unexpected, GPT is a statistical fitter over a selection of language features trained over a large dataset, it isn't intended to perform well in these scenarios - which is exactly the author's point. In order to perform well it would have to have some capability of understanding the sentence. I think it's more apt to say GPT is only capable at recognizing sentence features, it can't understand anything, at most it has built up a vague relationship between certain sentences and possible continuations.

GPT needs to be capable of at least the following in order to be a viable virtual companion: Memory, Reasoning, Metanarrative, Emotion, Empathy, Intent and Personality. GPT is not, and likely will never be a good conversational agent. No purely neural network based approach will, conversation is not a field you can fit a model to and hope to get something that works.

That makes no sense. You can meet people's basic needs without giving them money. This how soup kitchens, orphanages, and other shelters function - your basic survival needs are met and you can focus on improving your comfort. Money just lets you do the latter much easier, it has no impact on the former.

"I'd give back the following question: why are we rewarding people currently for doing mind-numbing bullshit jobs?"

What the hell does that mean? Nearly everyone's individual work is useless. A fry cook is useless in isolation, a pencil pusher is useless in isolation, even a programmer is useless in isolation. You do not get paid to do work, you get paid to produce value, hence why people can get fired even if they deliver a lot of low quality work. The work you do is useless in isolation, it is the combination of everyone else's work and the system itself that makes certain work valuable. This is why socialist fantasies like UBIs will only ever work if you have a slave force doing the work that needs to be done. The idea that John Doe's individual ability to slap car parts together somehow makes him valuable is what you get wrong. It's John's ability to exchange his ability to fix people's cars that produces value - in other words, John's ability to start a business and exchange work that he knows how to do for other goods and services. The demand and supply of John's ability and the cars that need fixing, provide John's pool of wealth. If Jane knows how to fix cars too, you don't just suddenly start giving her money for doing nothing, just knowing how to fix cars has no value by itself. I don't see why this is so hard to fathom why this UBI will obviously fail unless Germany has an AI work force it's been hiding under its sleeves this entire time. Someone has to do the productive work, and this will only result in musical chairs where no one wants to be the last one with a job. This system rewards people for not doing work, and unless they have a way of filling that gap, at best this will amount to a bunch of already priveleged individuals being paid to just exist, and at worst, those who are late to the party will be forced to fill that gap.

No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to do. But a UBI will take away any incentive for anyone to look for new productive endeavors.

"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?"

How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, there is always something productive for you to do. Having a UBI without replacing the people who actually do the productive work is just rewarding those who don't work, you didn't suddenly remove the need for work, someone still has to do all that work that needs to get done, but now there is less incentive for them to do so when they can just kick back and worry about someone else doing it.

A UBI is a socialist fantasy that will only ever work if you have a slave force (read: AI) that does work for free.

What is the problem when you reward people for not contributing anything?

So I should somehow believe that regular people, most of whom already have an excess of money after you deduct necessary survival expenses, will suddenly become artists and creators when given just a bit more money? This thread is laughable, and shows just how little semblance any opinions here have with reality

I find it interesting that even after a worldwide pandemic has proved that the majority of humans will prefer to act selfishly to maintain their own comfort level, you still somehow hold out hope that given literally free money, that the majority wouldn't also use this money selfishly to maintain their comfort level.

Unless Germany has a secret fleet of human-level AIs that can do anything a regular German worker can for free, this will fail. Even worse is that this failure will make them think UBIs will never work.

Is this satire?

Agreed. It's been stated time and time again that the next frontier of AI will come from a paradigm shift. Deep learning is great, but it is, at the end of the day statistical model fitting. Can it get us to the next frontier? Sure, as much as you can simulate a turing machine on a calculator and then simulate an R/B tree on that. Using ML to reach the next stage (of making algorithms capable of generic learning without being finely tuned) might be the hard way, and we may be approaching the mirror at mach speed. When, how, what, or why this paradigm shift will happen - no one knows, but we all know the alternative amounts to luck of the draw.

I've largely been of the camp that ML/DL will be the herald of the next AI winter, and while GPT-3 is impressive, it has no new constraints that we haven't already seen before, and doesn't break any that needed to be broken to change the field (NLP notwithstanding). Soon enough, the limitations of ML/DL will be apparent, and while there will be a breadth of practical applications to explore and analyze, we will be able to see clearly the boundary of how far ML/DL can take us, and will have to be content with what we have until the shift occurs.

Agreed. It's actually amazing how often I've seen a company truly believe that the lower wages they pay to offshore workers has no impact on the quality of the product, only for the truly diminished nature to become apparent after some time.

That's not to say all offshore workers are bad, of course. Just that, just because you can hire an Eastern European for half the price doesn't mean they will produce the same quality work as the other people who were more expensive.

You work from home, there is no one forcing you to live in a 400 sq ft apartment, and there is no one forcing you to share it with someone else. The fact that you relinquish that responsibility to your job is what is ridiculous - you choose where to live, and now that you WFH you can work from wherever you want, the fact your home is only 400 sq ft, and that you want to actually stay in an area where you have to pay upwards of $2k just for adequate space is not your workplace's responsibility to fix.

And the argument is not that these people getting 3 free meals arent adults, it's that they are actually unprepared for a world in which they themselves have to pay for their own breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I am shocked there are people who get 3 square meals a day all paid for by their job

I'm apalled that there are adults getting 3 free meals and are upset that they now have to get those meals themselves

And why would you pay $2000 for a "couple more" bedrooms? You're telling me you can't put an L-desk in your living room? This thread just has ridiculous scenarios upon ridiculous scenarios, like the guy who would need to take a "40k pay cut" to get a home gym and a 3D printer.

Silicon Valley never ceases to amaze me with how willing they are to overpay for underperformance with the promise of future overachievement

Sounds very plausible. I think many would agree there are no aliens piloting these craft, and that it isn't that hard to believe there are some groups that the government has either acquired or formed that can make extraordinary craft.

Much of the critique of this idea stems from the idea that our government is incompetent in everything that they do. Even that image of incompetence is something that is potentially very valuable in order to give other nations the false sense that there is no way such an incompetent organization could produce X or Y.

And that is how it should be. All parties need to align on how the future of the Web will look. If most users want a site with fancy features, that's what developers will make, and that is what businesses will prioritize

My question is what comes after? Look at AT&T, which was once part of the aftermath of Bell. It now owns so much of the telecom market, that it's only challengers own pretty much all major network stations and entertainment companies. And Verizon is no slouch either.

They can split these companies up but eventually some piece/s will gobble up the rest through dark mergers and aggressive business dealings and become bigger than their predecessor.

Another one is MIN and MAX ignore NULL values, which make for some interesting rollback scenarios.

I also swear I have seen a gotcha involving UPDATE WHERE IN and not throwing an error where it should have, which is why I always quadruple check my update statements, but I wasn't able to reproduce it and couldn't find any information online. I haven't seen the issue in so long I forgot what it was, but it would update all rows in your table even if your WHERE clause was proper.

This is a strawman argument that does nothing to deflect anything he is saying

Are there any studies or reports that point to the US falling behind technologically in regards to software research?

>I reached out to the CEO and basically the first question whas who was it to leak this and then basicly a statement that the company did not accuse me of anything and there is nothing that can be done about the gossip.

If it was a formal statement then you have nothing to worry about. If the slander is getting to you mentally, you could seek legal counsel but sounds like they can't actually do anything to you

If it was not formal, and there is a chance they can take you to court, then you need to get legal counsel, as you need to prep for defending yourself in court. If, as you say, they should not have anything which points to you being the malicious one here, then the hardest part is going to be the lawyer fees.

I do support along with my usual dev work and interface with users daily. I can't count the amount of times I've heard "I'm pretty sure it's because of..." followed by something completely unrelated, along with a stubborn resolve to not try the professional's recommended solution

>These platforms were purpose built for performance, concurrency, resiliency, and availability. Given advancements in the programming space, we wanted to see what languages best suited our reliability and performance needs. We also needed something that fit modern infrastructure and design patterns.

>As such, we launched an effort to evaluate different languages.

I feel the purpose of a payment network is performance, concurrency, resiliency, and availability, and somewhere, wayyy towards the bottom of the list, at 2px font size, modernity and extensibility are there.