tomlockwood

When these companies run out of VC hype money, what's the actual cost of running 10-20 instances of this at all times, going to be?

I thought this title was a reference to this David Bowie/NIN song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT3cERVRoQo

Congrats to them! Unions are the reason we have (had) an 8 hour day.

Yes we also invented drinking coffee.

Not only did Australians invent it, we also invented Pavlova, Sam Neill, etc.

As an Australian can I just say of this article: yeah nah

I don't know if anyone has been reading cover letters recently but it seems that people are prompting the LLMs with the same shit, dusting their hands and thinking "done" and what the reader then sees is the same repetitive, uncreative and instantly recognizable boilerplate.

The people prompting don't seem to realize what's coming out the other end is boilerplate dreck, and you've got to think - if you're replaceable with boilerplate dreck maybe your skills weren't all that, anyway?

The hate is justified. The hype, is not.

So a largely imaginary "problem" was replaced with an even larger "problem".

If you have a look at figure 2 here: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/lo...

You'll see that immigration was at record levels post Brexit.

I understand perfectly, thank you!!!

I think it'd kind of defeat the argument of the article to say that those two types of intuition about the sun, and of philosophers, are separate. And besides, before experiment the motion of the sun was pondered by philosophers - and there's some arguments that say the boundaries of philosophy are set by what slips out of theory into experiment!

Why are we sending the trillion?

So we're sending a trillion on faith?

Yeah I was in fact making a cheeky reference to Wittgenstein ;)

We were talking about the reliability of intuition versus sense perception.

So the answer is a few more trillion?

It intuitively appears that the sun is moving around the earth.

I don't think intuition is in the same class as "perception". I think intuition is better characterized as a byproduct of perception interacting with our preconceptions. I think fundamentally, intuitions are that part of the pattern-recognizing mind which allow us to quickly decide which tunnel is safe when fleeing a tiger. They are an antidote to indecision, but I think that perception is actually more reliable and factual than intuition in pretty much every sense, because it, in general, has some relation to the world that is thinly mediated by our minds. Intuition is the most unreliable part - it's mind all the way down.

So, to address the final two points:

> (1) if cross-cultural variance undermines the evidentiary value of rational intuition, then it also undermines the evidentiary value of perception for the exact same reasons.

No, perception in a sensory context has some relation to real or imagined phenomena. Intuition isn't predicated on that relation.

> (2) experimental philosophy depends upon perception to arrive at its conclusions (as do all experiments). Therefore, if we can’t count on perception to give us the truth, we can’t trust the results of experimental philosophy because of that very fact.

What about "I think therefore I am"? However, I'm quite frankly never sure I've landed on the truth as a philosopher, and I feel the same way about science. But that doesn't stop me trusting it.

The funny irony is that for years and years universities would as a policy not accept wikipedia as a reference. I think the thinking was that a published book was more likely to have been written by an expert in the field. Now, even that is less and less likely.

Ethnostates and Theocracies are shit. If an intelligence agency is representative of a single race or religion, its bad. Quit your job.

The question still stands.

> they don't deserve to have one

By what unholy pact have you been beknighted as the bestower of wikis, my friend?

Early advocates for Palestinian rights, in 1996?

Curious.

Except at the time many scholars in psychology and other disciplines were raising alarm bells about replicating tested and published results. So Social Text was in good company.

Wild that people think this exposes the Arts as not being rigorous enough when there is an ongoing, widespread replication crisis in psychology, economics, medicine. Increasingly universities are paper mills and the pressure to publish absolute dreck is ever higher. And yet the gleeful "rationalists" seem to ignore this. Why?

This is so uncannily similar to the "Mary's Room" argument in philosophy that I thought you were going there.

So the solution that gets upvoted during this hype cycle is the one that requires throwing more money at these companies? Curious.

It's funny (horrifying) coming from an advertising background - this sounds exactly like the tech that allows advertisers to take credit for conversions that are wildly unrelated to ads, in reality.

I absolutely applaud this. I doorknocked a thousand doors for my local state election and came out of the experience more optimistic than ever. Real people, listen. Real people want to make the world better. Getting out there is the antidote to doomerism.

Also I reckon it reads as a good lesson for managers too!

I want to suggest that the virus is even more insidious, and is an organism that feeds on VC money, and it is evolving via a substrate of human programmers to become more efficient at consuming it. And like an organism evolving towards survival, it gives no shits about the utility generated in return for the thing it eats.

And, as time goes on, it'll get more efficient at the consumption and waste less and less energy on the generation of utility. It is an organism that needs servers to feed and generates hype like a deep-sea monster glows its lure.