It's almost like a lot of our technologies were pretty mature already and an AI trained on 'what has been' has little to offer with respect to 'what could be'.
> If or when that happens, I think the economy would morph into a new thing completely focused on serving the whims of those "owners."
I think you might be a little behind on economic news, because that's already happening. And it's also rapidly reshaping business models and strategic thinking. The forces of capitalism are happily writing the lower and middle classes out of the narrative.
>> If or when that happens, I think the economy would morph into a new thing completely focused on serving the whims of those "owners."
> I think you might be a little behind on economic news, because that's already happening. And it's also rapidly reshaping business models and strategic thinking. The forces of capitalism are happily writing the lower and middle classes out of the narrative.
No, that doesn't surprise me at all. I'm basically just applying the logic of capitalism and automation to a new technology, and the same thing has played out a thousand times before. The only difference with AI is that; unlike previous, more limited automation; it's likely there will be no roles for displaced workers to move into (just like when engines got good enough there were no roles for horses to move into).
It's important to remember that capitalism isn't about providing for people. It's about providing for people with wealth to exchange. That works OK when you have full employment and wealth gets spread around by paying workers, but if most jobs disappear due to automation there's no mechanism to spread wealth to the vast majority of people, so under capitalism they'll eventually die of want.
Then don't look? We're all monkeys who are naked under all these clothes. Just focus on yourself and do your business and maybe do a little personal work if you're traumatized by exposed body parts.
Have you? As in, ever considered how that doesn't actually matter? That the bad thing does not imply or justify this response?
Their victimhood, whatever form it happened to take, is not everyone else's problem such that a shared space has to cater to their problem.
How brutal and uncaring right? I think this kind of argument comes from a position of equating this consideration with wheel chair ramps and navigation aids for the blind, which are good and proper things. But this is not like that.
Anyone can have a psychological problem with literally anything. For everyone that was harmed by sex, someone else was harmed by cars or simple non sex violence or not harmed by anyone at all but they simply have a problem of their own like autism etc. I was beat up and made to feel powerless a couple times as a kid. Therefor gyms should not allow there to be more than one other person around me, no groups of 3 or more, way too threatening. And no one else can be larger or stronger than me. Obviously absurd. But I was actually at other people's mercy and totally powerless while other people violated my body.
But ok let's grant that sex is somehow a special problem that is worth giving special treatment even if we can't give everyone else with all the other infinite problems the same consideration, ... wait that is pretty hard to grant even just for the sake of argument just so we can move on to the next argument. It doesn't hold water and won't go away... F all the people with any other problem that just doesn't happen to stem from sex and move on ... because we're good considerate people?
Anyway the next and more important question is, ever considered that that trauma only happened in the first place because of a society that treats this topic in such a warped way? Instead of a frank, adult, conscious, lack-of-all-charge way?
No, this is just not a valid argument. And it's not from not caring about the victim. It's that it doesn't even help the victim or have anything to do with them or what happened to them or the process of dealing with it after.
Easy there cowboy, this isn't a 'safe space' argument, this is an argument for preference. You are more than welcome to gallivant around while publicly nude, while others are more than welcome to prefer not to. That's really the crux of it.
If it's just a preference, then why mention the trauma at all? What bearing does it have, if not to try to give your "preference" the weight of a harm to justify getting your way when otherwise there would be no reason you should get your way?
"I can't control my reaction to someone else's body because trauma."
has an awful lot in common with "I can't control my reaction to someone else's body because male biology."
This trauma argument is the same as dudes that claim breastfeeding is vulgar and intolerable because they just can't be expected to control themselves in the presense of an uncovered breast.
And of course, this is also not just a preference. It's an attempt to justify something by having a stronger argument than a mere preference, namely a trauma.
But let's just pretend you didn't try to wield trauma as a club. It's bad faith argument forgiveness day.
No few people have a "preference" that babies should not exist on planes or in restaurants because they don't like the sound of them crying or their smells.
All the men of whole countries have a preference that women just shouldn't exist anywhere out in public.
And of course the breastfeeding already mentioned.
I would call all of those invalid but hey I'm just a "cowboy".
I'd like to be the first one to add a comment in agreement.
Having had a high number of uncomfortable experiences in nude-allowed locker rooms, it's nice to know there are spots where I don't need to be subjected to it if I prefer not to.
> Maybe most men don't want to see other men naked?
Don't look then? No one is forcing you to look anywhere else than what you're doing. It always struck me as strange that people seem disgusted/disturbed/annoyed by something yet they're unable to look away and focus on their own business instead.
Tell that to old Joe Dangly-sac using the hand air dryer to blow the water off his old sagging balls.
I walked in on that the first time I ever used a public gym and that shit is seared into my memory--that was enough to turn me off of the locker room for some time and you know what, I don't miss it.
More often than not, pub[l]ic nudity is innocuous, nothing remarkable, but there will always be the outlier that spoils the rest of the bunch by doing weird shit with their genitals, be it drying them where theyre not supposed to be dried (see above), touching themselves in a sexual manner (seen it in a few different locker rooms, and of course the old naked men who are more than friendly to younger, naked men.
I for one say good riddance to the nude locker room. Fuck that shit.
Sometimes I wonder how people walk through life so shielded from anything. You've seen another man naked for the first and only time, and it's "seared into my memory"?
I've been in locker rooms for 40 years, and have seen someone touch themselves in a sexual manner once, across 40 years. I've seen more people masturbating in public streets than in any locker rooms. Pretty crazy how people can go through life with so different experiences.
I think what you're missing here is that China would be (is?) happy to fund the development, because it's in their national interest and necessary in order for their companies to stay competitive, so long as there are trade restrictions on chips. Another framing for this is that China and certain other entities (e.g. content distribution channels like Meta, Youtube) have a strong incentive to 'commoditize their [AI] complement' (https://gwern.net/complement).
I think the stock market has just proven time and time again that a large proportion of investors (and VCs) do basically no due diligence or critical thinking about what they're throwing money at, and businesses actually making profit hasn't mattered for a long time - which was the only thing tethering their value to the actual concrete stuff they're building. If you can hype it well your share price goes up, and even the investors that do do due proper diligence can see that and so they're all in too.
By and large people do not have the integrity to even care that numbers are obviously being fudged, and they know that the market is going to respond positively to blustering and bald faced lies. It's a self reinforcing cycle.
Oh trust me I know. I worked at Palantir well before it was public and had firsthand experience of Alex Karp. He would draw incomprehensible stick figure box diagrams on a whiteboard for F100 CEOs, ramble some nonsensical jargon, and somehow close a multimillion dollar pilot. The guy is better at faking it than high-end escorts. It doesn't surprise me that this has fooled degens around the world, from Wall Street to r/wallstreetbets. Incredibly, even Damadoran has thrown in the towel and opened a position, while still admitting he has no idea what they do.
> This is why Python or JavaScript are great languages to start with (even if JavaScript is a horrible language)
The author was hemorrhaging credibility all along the way and then this comment really drove home what he is: a bike shedder who probably deliberately introduces complexity into projects to keep himself employed. If you read between the lines of this post, it is clearly a product of that mindset and motivation.
'AI is only good at the simple parts that I don't like, but it's bad at the simple parts I do like and that are my personal expertise and keep me employed.'
I can't even begin to imagine what sort of mind could observe the quality of Big Tech's software output and conclude that there's nothing wrong with their hiring process.
Big tech software is successful and runs at scale.
I've got anecdotal experience in both worlds and no. Big tech software isn't faster (what you have is way more compute resources usually), and the claim about "less buggy" gives me goosebumps.
All the software I use. Netflix works perfectly every time. HBO Max is garbage. Amazon's website and app are pretty good, although the actual goods sold are trash. Costco is exactly the other way around.
Apples to oranges. You're not comparing big tech to "normal-size" tech (in the context of the original article), you're comparing tech companies with the biggest budgets in the world, with companies that aren't tech at all. In your example, one is a media company, the other is wholesale/retail one.
My problem with Big Tech software isn’t code quality, it’s the deliberate user-hostile decisions they make. Leetcode-style interviews appear to be doing fine at getting people who can write code.
Lmao. Nice.
reply