aw thanks!
29 karma · joined August 14, 2018
How old were you when you played it?
> "上半期（2024年1月～6月）に退職代行サービスを利用して退職した人がいた企業は23.2％だった。また、過去の退職代行利用者の実績を年度別に聞くと、2021年は16.3％、2022年は19.5％、2023年は19.9％"
These seem like full-year numbers, but they're much lower than what I'd expect if 23.2% is the half-year number — implying a huge jump in 2024?
They say 16.6% of people who changed jobs last year used these services, but only 23.2% of companies report having any employees use them. If 16.6% is correct, the % of companies number should be much higher, supposing companies have multiple resignations per year.
The method for the first number on how they found their respondents is described just as "internet survey," with no further info. There are a lot of ways to do this that would over-sample people who use these services.
Still not really what I'm after, but that's what the 'Following' tab is for.
People are alleging that OpenAI is calling out to a chess engine, but seem to be not considering this less scandalous possibility.
Of course, to the extent people are touting chess performance as evidence of general reasoning capabilities, OpenAI taking costly actions to boost specifically chess performance and not being transparent about it is still frustrating and, imo, dishonest.
But will we maintain control of the above-human-ability, autonomous AI systems these companies are racing to build? This is the AI control problem.
If not, then "AI can automate science" isn't much of a counterpoint or reason to be optimistic -- science may be automated, but not under any human's control and not for any human's benefit. In fact, if we're in this situation, the ability of AI systems to automate science is worse news than otherwise, in the same way that the invention of science by humans was bad (or at best, very mixed) news for the animals of Earth.
If this isn't the place, though, I understand.