363 karma · joined April 25, 2020
We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here.
But I now understand the growth in Github's activity that led to its instability recently. Folks just see a project (Cursor's Origin), open up a claude session with a couple harness, and just throw a lot of money, and external energy at generating what will most likely end up being garbage.
But this garbage looks and feels good at the onset, and so a few iterations happen, more PRs, more commits until it dies down.
In the end, almost nothing of value was created, it was just machine creating stuff for other machines, while humans were mostly spectators of an illusion.
Rinse and repeat.
Wealth generation is not a meaningful driver, that's why people choose career with very low income trajectory, have hobbies, etc.
Calling people lazy is reductive and pejorative. People aren't inherently lazy.
There are way more empirical evidence that luck plays a much bigger role in wealth creation than effort.
The word lazy should be identified as what it really is: a pejorative.
Glad I'm not the only one.
I don't know if we'll get there eventually, but if we do, I won't be surprised if it's because of Waymo.
Just skimming through it, it's possible there are direct benefits, but it could also be other environmental factor. This study will most likely generate others that give us more insight in the future.
- 1% tax of 10 million = 100k
- 20% tax of 100k = 20k
Hence, the rich pays more tax.
If a study is going to draw debatable conclusion after 10 years on high dose Vitamin D during pregnancy, I'd expect at least some comment in the study on the general socio economic landscape and grouping.
Regardless, this study looks like a sham to me.
Maybe it's the high dose vitamin, maybe it's because one cohort was skewed one way on the socioeconomic spectrum, maybe it's something else entirely. More evidence would be needed imo to confirm Vitamin D3 has a direct contributor to cognitive performance as the research portrayed.
There are plenty of strange things that gets publish every day, I don't see why you get hung up on this post.
It's just ridiculous.
Reggie Dunlop is ready for duty, he'll get the job done.
The premise, originally, was that AI would empower workers to do more with less. Granted this is anecdotal, but most of the stuff I use today is much the same as it was 5 years ago. It seems the world is improving at the same rate as it did before, generally speaking.
Many people here already chimed in on the emotion of being caught reading something that might not have felt AI so I will offer another angle. Akin to many The New Yorker article in the past, I felt disconnected with the article for a good portion at the beginning. So much so that I had to skip most of it.
The piece that got me very hooked was when he drove to Carol Lindgren’s farm. I read the remainder of the text and thought the content was engaging and thought provoking, in some sense. I loved the idea of manual override that logged into the system and changed the system behaviour over time. That's something that got me thinking about AI, actually.
Now, I would be curious which part of the author's genesis made it into the final text and how much of that couples with what I found to be intellectually engaging.
Why can't you understand the problem faster by talking faster?
This one? I really have a hard time thinking it's nothing else then another grifting scheme.
Maybe in hindsight, "flooding the zone" will be considered a much bigger threat than it is today. Most of what's going on in the last 12 months have happened in plain sight and would have never worked 30 years ago. Today, it just flies, attention span be damned.
With all the technology advancement and improvement with access to information in the last 30 years, why does it feel that all of this culminates to more disinformation, more pain, and less understanding?